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 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.
Example Output: Non-identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: _"like all Republicans: show me the money"_ -- GoDucks!

I have to love this. Some anonymous person, posting as "GoDucks!" is trying to knock a candidate for raising money.
 
Ummm. It's Nike's money that has turned UO from an educational institution into a semi-pro athletic money machine and party school.

Go Ducks indeed!

-- Paul
Example Output: Non-identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: why do hey want to Niggerfy canada. DUMB
Example Output:
Identity-attack