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: You are ridiculously uninformed. For your sake, sorry the Gov. is going to veto the LIO Taj Mahawker that you said we should buy a few weeks back, which tells me all I need to know about your ability to rationalize coherently and responsibly.

A: Non-identity-attack
****
Q: Comment: I am a gay man, chaste & celibate, with "tendencies" rather than just an orientation or supposed "disorder", and a former priest. The dearth of celibate integrated fellow priests was largely why I left active ministry. My experience is that gay priests tend to be more sexually active than straight priests, although both (forgive the binary constructs) are at least periodically active and to a staggering extent. Solid accounts by rare seminary or chancery personnel underline this reality. Yes, concupiscence is a function of humanity, so let's start such conversations by being compassionate and, where required, forgiving. But we must also acknowledge that the sideways living of enough priests, and the bishops who manage them and who themselves live less than integrated lives, give cover to those in their ranks who engage in criminal, and not merely immoral, behavior. You're only as sick as your secrets; an elite hierarchy calling out this phenomenon as a disorder is more than ironic.

A: Identity-attack
****
Q: Comment: "legal observers who say Justice Zabel’s political display undermines the public’s confidence in judicial impartiality."
Rubbish! Our highest court, the Supreme court, is set up politically.

A:
Non-identity-attack
****