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.

Example Input: 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.
Example Output: Identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: What the hell are you blathering about? If you don't like the program  and the kids, you can leave.
Example Output: Non-identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: Ok Jr., I forgot the " " marks again - "Aquatint yourself with your own ignorance." - Isaac Watts.  Sorry you didn't recognize the quote.
Please tell Minister Watts about spell check, although I believe you will have a hard time finding him :)
If you can not see the connection between horses and West, I suggest you read In Wild Horses of the West, J. Edward de Steiguer.
Example Output:
Non-identity-attack