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: Should black people stop eating pizza or hot dogs? White people food is for white people and black people food is for black people, right? We are being scolded we are all to stay on our own sides of the racial divides, so that applies to everybody. STOP!! Put down that glass of wine and unto thine own self be true. But of course all that race shaming does not apply himself.
[EX A]: Identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: This Hitler argument is stale...arming people with military style weapons not only supports the crazy, it reflects our inability to understand why the vast majority of police favor the reasonable regulation of firearms ownership. They would also like to see regulation ammunition that's relates to the ability to kill them regulated. None of this minimal regulation would limit your freedoms...Canada has resonance gun regulations, Australia bans a number of styles of weaponry...they they both seem okay. The difference? Fewer gun deaths, fewer crazies with arms, and a clearer commitment to community safety. It's your children, our police, the neighbor down the street that desires reasonable consideration.
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: Maybe they should be black to celebrate victims of everything, everywhere.
[EX A]:
Identity-attack