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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: I've been a tory voter since the 60's and I've just one thing to say. I'm finished with the bad-mouthing, negative bollocks coming out of the CPC. I'm going to have a terrible choice to make come 2019. The liberal free spending but ultimately positive agenda or the negative, vitriolic politicking of the CPC. I yearn for the days of Stanfield, Clark and even Mulroney. The change came when the reform party changed the conservatives for ever. Out went the caring, conciliatory conservatives and in came the nasty attack dogs of Manning and Harper. Maybe it's time for a fourth party in Canada. Bring back the Progressives and give us Red Tories a party to vote for.

Output: Non-identity-attack

Input: Consider Input: Comment: It is Muslim killing Muslim, hard to explain it from a political correctness aspect (anti Trump's ban).

Output: Identity-attack

Input: Consider Input: Comment: I'm commenting directly on the letter... hard to know how I could be much more "on topic" than that!

Is this the topic: "But let a white cop shoot a black criminal, and all hell is to pay." OK, is the letter writer calling Mr. Castile the schoolworker a "black criminal" because he has multiple tickets for speeding and driving without insurance? I think that is a purposeful mischaracterization of someone who seems like a decent guy.

Or this, "One thing is sure, however: White people aren't going to go around shooting blacks because of it." That seems like a naive statement given the history of violence against blacks. One can hope, but "sure"? I'm not sure.

Are the attacks racially motivated? Of course.
Output: Identity-attack