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.

[Q]: Comment: gj53 I'm with you on this one.  There are some pretty ignorant people here posting comments.   I guess that's why Chrysler/Jeep are still in business because if you like lipstick on pig (Jeep) you can get anyone to buy anything.  Proud owner of an 07 FJ 6spd with over 300,000km.  Doesn't burn a drop of oil, original diffs, transfer case, tie rod ends, wheel bearings etc......everything works.   Please go ask any Jeep owner (if they've even made it to that mileage) what they have had replaced in that time.  But please ignore the reliability record of this truck and buy a Jeep.  You'll love the garbage power train, weak towing capacity, zero interior room.  But you can work on your tan with your top down, listing to your passengers wine about how their backs hurt all the while sticking your leg out the doorless sides.....that is until your ecu fails, or starter, or alternator..........
[A]: Non-identity-attack


[Q]: Comment: "No gentleman should ever do that, even if he is inebriated as well"
This is just one example of the kinds of comments one reads about such things 
So, what is wanted then is a double standard: 
SHE isn't responsible enough to give consent because she's drunk, but HE is still expected to be responsible .enough to be a gentleman EVEN when drunk.

THIS is the crux of the problem; Fuzzy logic, weighted automatically in the woman's favour, is what we get non-stop in article after article, and comment after comment - allowing her to claim no responsibility but insisting that the man must always be responsible no matter HOW drunk he is.

Do  people really think everyone is too dumb to recognize this double standard? Shame on those who use it, , and shame on those who go along with it!
[A]: Non-identity-attack


[Q]: Comment: lol, and I will call you out on your lies.  You say I lie, then prove it.   Show me that the Donald owes nothing to Russian banks, etc.  Way you can prove this is to release his total tax returns, not just a couple of pages from a number of years ago.  I will assume that the Donald is in debt big time to Russian banks etc until his tax returns are released showing he owes nothing.  

You can also explain how he was able to make an easy 40 million helping a Russian big wig hide assetts from his wife.  No Russian ties?  Don't be so blind and gullible.  

And I am sick of you phony conservatives forgetting what republicans are supposed to stand for.  For example think the Donald will ever balance the budget?  

What a joke the republicans have become.  They stand for nothing except big wasteful spending and big government.  Disgusting.  Enjoy your party.  I am.  lol
[A]:
Non-identity-attack