instruction:
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: It's funny how you don't need police when you don't have any níggers.
answer:
Identity-attack


question:
Comment: I bet a black cop called you a white trash felon, you would take offense
answer:
Identity-attack


question:
Comment: Well, crappy language aside, would you agree:
-  you argue that differences between males and females is a explanation as to why women can never be ordained priests?
-  that style of argument is what is meant by the ontological argument?
-  that argument is no longer part of the magisterium's explanation, in so far as it was conspicuously dropped from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?
-  to invoke an obsolete argument in a current discussion is fairly described as metaphorically hauling something out of a closet?
- "deniers" is a fair epithet for those who deny that woman can be ordained?

The leaves only my adjective "crap" to describe the ontological argument. Yeah, I could have been more circumspect in expressing my "disdainful dismissal" of this argument. Note, BTW, that it is the argument that I "dismiss" as "crap" not those who haul it out of the closet.

Still, Pandora, if you have taken offence and feel you have been unfairly "labelled" and "dismissed", I apologize.
answer:

Non-identity-attack