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: I'd like to get on-board with you Les, but don't you think the president bears some responsibility for the negativity you reference? Tweeting about "The media is the enemy of the American people". Silly nonsense about the size of the crowd at the inauguration and the actress Meryl Streep, etc. Banning some of the press from a news conference just because they challenge him on some of the things he says? (I don't think we elected him "King and Supreme Ruler of the Land"). 
From your letter: "Wouldn’t it be more wise and reasonable for negative citizens to consider the damage and distraction they are causing? Wouldn’t it be better to remember the simple phrase, “e pluribus unum?” To date, I think President Trump is one of those "negative citizens" you're talking about.
In his speech last night he seemed to turn it around. If the guy, through talk and ACTION (policies) starts behaving like he wants to be president of all the people (what he was elected to be), I'll get on-board with you.
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: I've been wondering myself whether we were going to see the Dictator or the Blowhard who accomplishes nothing.  Certainly, the latter is preferable.
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: You've just confirmed to me that you are a lot like the idiot in chief. All talk and no substance. Only difference is your words are much more intelligent than the dummy.
[EX A]:
Non-identity-attack