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.

[EX Q]: Comment: I like to imagine the look of shock these lazy left lane vigilantes would have when getting traffic tickets in other jurisdictions such as Europe where highway rules are enforced.  These places also have higher speed limits on divided highways, and most people follow them.

Alas, hogs aren't typically interested in how others live and feel, and are less likely to visit such places.
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: "No gentleman should ever do that, even if he is inebriated as well"
This is just one example of the kinds of comments one reads about such things 
So, what is wanted then is a double standard: 
SHE isn't responsible enough to give consent because she's drunk, but HE is still expected to be responsible .enough to be a gentleman EVEN when drunk.

THIS is the crux of the problem; Fuzzy logic, weighted automatically in the woman's favour, is what we get non-stop in article after article, and comment after comment - allowing her to claim no responsibility but insisting that the man must always be responsible no matter HOW drunk he is.

Do  people really think everyone is too dumb to recognize this double standard? Shame on those who use it, , and shame on those who go along with it!
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: I guess the bums in Kakaako managed to chew through the electrical conduit at SA's building and run a split to power their TV in the tents. Man, they're really going to get upset when they won't get their TV programming. LOL
[EX A]:
Non-identity-attack