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: Islam is terrible.
answer:
Identity-attack


question:
Comment: Sure thing gadabout. Just put that sad face when you can't discredit my claim. God forbid you have to agree with someone on the opposite spectrum as you. How tolerant of you goofs. Discredit the claim that war is more profitable then peace. Give it a whirl not a pathetic sad face.
answer:
Non-identity-attack


question:
Comment: Z,

Sec 171-36 (b)(1) exists in current law.  I asked for it to be removed early in session when I was questioning a Chair,  given the ambiguity it carries.  He advised later that the DAG prefers it stay in.  The subsection has (apparently) never been used, and if you think it might be used for something big someday, e.g. TMT, well it hasn't been used so far.  So perhaps it's viewed as some kind of "nuclear option".  I really don't know.

Please,  I am not disseminating "misinformation".  If I state an opinion, I'll back it up with why I arrived at that conclusion.  If I advise someone they've misunderstood a concept I point out the inconsistency, I don't accuse them of ignorance or evil.    I'm very familiar with this bill, know it's intent, and am appalled at the lack of in depth analysis, or concern for consequences, displayed by those commenting.  This is a serious issue, and the criticisms of this bill are frequently founded on mischaracterizations or misunderstandings.
answer:

Non-identity-attack