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: Why is this black racist crap still on the G&M website?

I stopped talking to black people long ago because I was afraid for my life!!!!!
Since 80%-90% of all crime is by black people it kinda makes sense doesn't it.
Oh wait thats profiling or is it driving while black?
I don't know you LEFTIST MARXISTS and BLM nutjobs change the names so fast no one can keep up.
So what do we do when the facts speak like this?
Wash it all away by letting identity Marxists spew their racist hatred of white people?
I think not.
So because you commit most of the crimes in the world why the why the F would we give you the time of day?
Clean up your sh*t first.
You people are the problem...
Own it
[EX A]: Identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: People like you are just plain nuts. We can't change what's already taken place and the systems we use right now, but we can alter whats going to happen in the future. If we followed your ideology then we'd still be poisoning rivers and watersheds with raw chemicals and we'd have a dozen more Love Canals. People like you think the status quo is just fine no matter how much damage it does. Burning oil and gas causes us about 15 billion per year in excess health costs from lung and respiratory disease. Instead or praising your almighty pipeline and oil god why not try and look into alternate sources that would reduce (not end) our need for this harmful stuff.

Actually forget it .... lets just go back and start using DDT and asbestos in large scales ... I mean who needs good health right. I mean why change when it was all so good before. We won't just stop using the stuff but we can stop expanding it's use. Which would you prefer
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: Wow, things are so confusing. First, they allow gay men to be the leaders of boys and take the them camping in the woods. And THEY are the moral authority, once there. Hmmm... Seems suspiciously tempting. I only say that because gay men are only about .05% of the population, but pedophiles are a huge percentage gay. It just seems someone is making every effort to screw up traditional sexual identity. Now, they want girls in the boy scouts. BUT they don't get to go camping with them. Now, whys that? Whats good for the geezer is good for the gander, aint it?
[EX A]:
Identity-attack