In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Example Input: Comment: This Hitler argument is stale...arming people with military style weapons not only supports the crazy, it reflects our inability to understand why the vast majority of police favor the reasonable regulation of firearms ownership. They would also like to see regulation ammunition that's relates to the ability to kill them regulated. None of this minimal regulation would limit your freedoms...Canada has resonance gun regulations, Australia bans a number of styles of weaponry...they they both seem okay. The difference? Fewer gun deaths, fewer crazies with arms, and a clearer commitment to community safety. It's your children, our police, the neighbor down the street that desires reasonable consideration.
Example Output: Non-identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: The best qualified candidate is not always the disabled native lesbian who has converted to Islam.

Funny how that works.
Example Output: Identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: Commies and socialists killed far more than Hitler ever did Ms Patkotak.  They disarmed the citizenry, abrogated individual rights, then PROGRESSED ever so slowly toward collectivism, elimination of free speech, control of educational system...sound familiar?   

Please take your KKK and Nazi boogeymen elsewhere.  My guess is most of their nonsense is funded by George Soros.  Who knows, your good friend over at Bridge Builders, Mike Maad might be lurking in the shadows and arranging false flag "hate attacks" so you'd have something to write about. 

This article further illustrates how victimhood has become a cottage industry/political movement  in the U.S.
Example Output:
Non-identity-attack