In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: insult and non-insult. Insult is any lanugage or act that is disrespectful or scornfully abusive.

[Q]: Comment: Hey, anyone ever think about getting the indian net's out of the river?
Maybe stop all commercial fishing in the ocean.
Maybe stop killing whales with 50 cals? That's sure a traditional way of killing whales; yep! tow us out to where the whales are and then shoot it and tow us to shore! WOW!
[A]: Non-insult

[Q]: Comment: The core is summed up near the end, where she writes she wants to bring Justin Trudeau's quota system, for insisting on plentiful women Cabinet Ministers, into science:

"We led by example with the first ever gender-balanced Cabinet (and with) the first feminist international-assistance policy [which sees the VAST majority of Canada's foreign aid aimed at women and girls!!!]. Science would benefit from adopting a similar approach..."

Hello?

Does the writer think Canadians are blind, lacking in memory?

Look, when Justin Trudeau came to his senses months later, he TERMINATED women cabinet ministers from their posts for lackluster performances and REPLACED them. VERY EMBARRASSING and VERY MALADAPTIVE MESSAGE for gender relations in Canada.

And the writer wants to bring THAT MESS to universities? With SEXIST grant funding akin to Liberal foreign aid ?

I thought Trudeau's team was all about "evidence based" government. Hello? We have seen the evidence. Quotas are sexist and awful.
[A]: Insult

[Q]: Comment: Yes. If we are talking about actual sexual assault survivors, i.e. the victim of a violent sexual assault, then I agree with him. However if we are embracing the hysterics of 'all women must be believed, then I take issue. I have investigated both, and done a proper job on each one. The difference is that when it is obvious that the complainant is not truthful, it is maddening. Time and resources are wasted. Please note, I am not saying kick them out the door in the first instance. However, when you have spoken to the complainant, then the suspect, and any witnesses involved, and there is no evidence, it is time to go. This is where the unfounded come in. Once the matter is headed for the courts, I fully support the complainant, because there is evidence to support the allegations. Prior to that, it is the job of the police to ask probing questions, especially if we feel we are being lied to and manipulated.
[A]:
Non-insult