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 Input:
Comment: Could all this critical talk of him be racially motivated?
The well mannered Senator (Meridith) is being forced out because he was black and the female was a young white girl. Is that racially motivated? 
Start the spin process as of now!

Ex Output:
Identity-attack


Ex Input:
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 Output:
Non-identity-attack


Ex Input:
Comment: hipsters, white people with dreadlocks, credit card hippies, and self-entitled self-righteous over privileged idealistic white millenials. 

if i were a minority, a woman or gay, these would be the absolute last people i would want taking up my cause, or attempting to represent my interests and/or frustrations.

but alas, i am in fact the problem- a thirty-something white male- the sole cause of every injustice ever perpetrated on anyone or anything since the damn of humankind.  and i've never been so ashamed.

Ex Output:

Identity-attack