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 official. Canadians have been driven to mental illness.

Answer: Identity-attack


Question: Comment: Well, you and your ilk fall for fake "science" promoted by deniers, so you've already shown an inability to recognize it if it even when it hits you in the face.....

Answer: Non-identity-attack


Question: Comment: I think that it should not even have been necessary to identify all her bull-shit in the interviews; she should have been excluded upfront.

Her CV shows she was neither the best candidate nor did her career demonstrate the most basic legal experience that the PP role would require.

Anybody with an LLB degree can apply to the High Court to be included on the ‘roll’ of advocates. Unless you actually practice law, it is disingenuous to call yourself an advocate when you apply for a job requiring legal expertise although of course you can do so.

During the interview, the only relevant question should have been what she has done as an advocate that qualified her for the role.

Answer:
Non-identity-attack