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.
--------
Question: Comment: Are you kidding me. Trans gender bathroom bill, westboro, god hates fags, attempting to pint gays as pedophiles, painting gays as the cause of the aids epidemic, and constantly judging everyone through a very negative lens has been the religious rights mode of attack.

Then you dare come on here and again attack people that call out intolerance. It is not intolerance to point out hate, and your side peddles in hate of everything they didn't like.

Your side has spent years shouting down and name calling anyone that doesn't agree, then you come here and blame the other side. Par for the course, I guess.

Party of Personal Responsibility or is it Party of Her Emails now?

Answer: Identity-attack


Question: Comment: This was the longest hockey column on this site for eons.  It got hard to read 'bout halfway thru, the tears from this columnist's eyes dripping onto the page were smearing the words....

Of all the teams in the playoffs, Cal was the only 1 that had a losing record in reg, meaning they relied on extra time, loser pts, to get in.  They were pretenders all the way.

Their goal diff was barely to the good, barely, another stat that told us quite a bit.

And, Ana was an awful draw for them.  So, add it all up, and you get Ana winning a short series, which is what happened.

They played in a 14-team conference, in which 4 of the teams were god-awful, meaning they only had to be better than 2 of their 9 opponents.  There were better teams in the East that did not make the playoffs than Cal.

Let's move on.

Answer: Non-identity-attack


Question: Comment: Mr. Trump repeatedly exposes himself as a crude, crass misogynistic lout.  To note that those are unattractive characteristics in a Presidential candidate doesn't constitute "character assassination."  If you're not bothered by his values, that's your choice.  If you actually share his misogynistic view of women, that's your choice.  

Your defense of Trump is pathetic....the old "hey, everybody does it" sounds like a plea to a Junior High School vice principal.  No, Dun., not everybody is as crude and crass as Donald Trump.  
I know hundreds of men and, over my 74 years I've never been around someone who has made comments like Mr. Trump's.  

He's surrounded by sycophants (that's PC for #@$#kissers) so those comments have been accepted and reinforced.  The man is pathetic....but, that hardly qualifies him to be president.  He's embarrassing enough as a candidate.  It's simply unthinkable that he could be president.

Answer:
Non-identity-attack