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: "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!

SOLUTION: Non-identity-attack

PROBLEM: Comment: Totally agree...he can't accept any blame whatsoever....let's just blame the black guy....as of today:  his OWN REPUBLICAN leaks from the White House are Obama's fault (are you kidding me?) and the botched raid in which a SEAL died last month is the military's (and Obama's, by the way !!!) fault!!

SOLUTION: Identity-attack

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