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.

[EX Q]: Comment: Such is the ways in which we have decided as a society as to how we we deal with misfits; those who march to the beat of another drum; those we can "put away" for not following the "norms" that have been established; those who are annoyingly bothersome; those who can't follow the rules; those with some find of deficiencies deemed difficult to handle, etc.  Do we consider these means to be the most effective and successful ways in dealing with these "problems"?  Sure doesn't seem like it, but, we seem to go on our merry way heading in this direction.  How come?
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: BS as usual.

He used you and your ilk like a dirty rag, one has to muse as the alt left wakes up to this reality.

Well at least he approved the pipelines along with Trump approving  Key Stone.

Should make for great media!!!!
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: What is most interesting about the former 'error' printed here was the juxtaposition of how obviously it wasn't true, with how it obviously seemed true to the writer. To somebody who only knows Greenberg's work through the dismissive and error-riddled writing of others, Greenberg supposedly rejecting something for "not being abstract enough" fits exactly with their utterly ignorant ideas about him. To somebody who has actually read and understood what Greenberg actually wrote over his long career, the idea that Greenberg would ever say anything like that is absurd.

The gulf between what 99% of today's art writers think Greenberg wrote, and what he plainly, actually did write, is vast.
[EX A]:
Non-identity-attack