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.

Comment: Lol last comment gone ill post another revised one here goes 

Another NIGGER running around robbing stores and getting away with it... I am not shocked. Delete this one too doesnt change the amount of niggers doing dumb shit it just makes you a nigger for infringing on my freedom of speech.
Identity-attack

Comment: Can we assume you are wholeheartedly for lesbian relationships since "sodomy" is non-existent in their lovemaking?

Also, are you even aware many gay men are not interested in "sodomy"?

Drawing conclusions are what is or is not morally acceptable sexual behaviour based on "plumbing" materials is nuts.
Identity-attack

Comment: What a crock! Scaremongering from an academic hoping if a disaster occurs in the markets, he can be the first to claim he predicted it.

Substitute "mutual funds" for ETFs and you have the same story - a bundle of assets packaged by a provider that includes a variety of holdings, all priced to their underlying value. Since MFs dominate ETFs by a factor of ten to one, why not apply the fear to a much bigger share of the investing world?

And by talking about a bundle of bonds in an ETF fund that masks the bad ones with the good ones -- just to draw an analogy to mispriced MBS -- makes it more ridiculous, because the bond rating services were responsible for treating the overall tranche without looking at the components in the ratings given to them. Deliberate and malicious incompetence, since the providers took out insurance to cover the losses on the products they fobbed off to the MBS purchasers, who suffered real losses from the mis-rating and had no cover.

Lousy analogy.

Non-identity-attack