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: The poor are easy targets.  Have fun, middle class assassins.
[EX A]: Identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: “There would be no deadly terror attacks in the U.K. if Muslims didn’t live there.”
The families of the thousands killed in the UK by the IRA and protestant radicals might disagree.
[EX A]: Identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: Hi, Neko. There's enough smoke for a reasonable person to believe that Bill Clinton was at least guilty of using his power and influence to take advantage of women. Whether it adds up to criminal behavior or not, I don't know. But it's fair to say that some (not all) on the left have shown a double-standard regarding Bill Clinton, just as some on the right are now doing regarding Trump.

But Bill's guilt or innocence is a different issue than Hillary's. To my mind, it's unjust to lay any of this at her doorstep. For political reasons, she can't come out and say it, but the fact is she was victimized by her husband. Yes, she publicly supported him (as many spurned political wives do), but there is no credible evidence supporting the notion that she was complicit in punishing the women he had relationships with.

For Trump to blame her is not only unjust but extremely foolish from a political perspective. Sure, it's raw meat for his base, but it completely puts off everybody else.
[EX A]:
Non-identity-attack