TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Comment: I knew it. I knew that whatever Dingman used as a title to his column, whatever his opening paragraphs were, I knew Dingman would end up in the same place he always ends up. I knew he'd end up promoting the same nonsensical garbage that the laziest of lazy journalists always promote; that being the false equivalency and both siderist trash that people like Dingman, Ron Fournier and David Brooks always promote.  

No matter the specific issue or situation, Dingman is just like a parrot that keeps squawking "brawk brawk, both sides, both sides, brawk brawk.

Dingman says both conventions were equally marred by "disunity". But even the master of the false equivalency, the Ayatollah of both siderism, David Brooks, even he wasn't brushing the conventions with his usual both siderist paint.  

Early in his column, Dingman refers to the "political cluelessness" of others. But if he  wants to see a living, breathing example of political cluelessness, all he needs is a mirror.

SOLUTION: Non-identity-attack

PROBLEM: Comment: The irony is that on that point we agree.  Until you start defending them because you like their foreign policy.  Guess you hate all those little brown Muslims worse than you hate Hill and Billary, and don't mind if the latter kills 'em by the millions for you...

SOLUTION: Identity-attack

PROBLEM: Comment: So what, we should only be reading articles that push "transit advocacy"??  Sounds awfully one-sided.

SOLUTION:
Non-identity-attack