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: It's bad enough we already have all these American sicko's living in this country shooting up theatre, schools, churches, malls, etc., we don't have room for crazy muslims.
Example output: Identity-attack
Example explanation: This comment contains identity attacks on both American and Muslim.
Q: Comment: 1/2
You seem determined to characterize persons you disagree with in way that is intended to offend them, and in ways that don't allow for the variations and distinctions among them. My sense in reading this board, and my experience in the offline world, is that is a strategy that polarizes the argument and that almost guarantees no progress in resolving the issues. It's a strategy, in other words, that so obviously guarantees that abortions will continue unabated and avoids discussions that might lead to policies to reduce them.
To be fair, though, I understand the impulse. It was frustrating to me to watch Trump assume a "pro-life" mantle as he ran for president, and even more frustrating to watch people in the "pro-life" movement allow themselves to be duped. Now we've seen his budget and healthcare proposals: militantly anti-life, pro-sickness, pro-death and pro-abortion.
Yet I've seen only one or two Trump voters admit they were duped.
A:
Non-identity-attack