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: For me, there's something powerfully wrong when the BC Liberal government goes ahead and quietly sells-off publicly owned social housing properties/assets like Nicholson Tower, Sunset Towers, or others, without first holding open public consultations/hearings as part of the democratic process involved in the sale of these publicly owned assets first, and that would include the residents most affected by the damn sale and the neighbourhood where the public properties/assets are located - much like public hearings are held on a municipal property re-zoning application for example. But alas, it seems like our beloved less-than-democratically-open BC Liberal government, deemed this wholly unnecessary. Why!??
[EX A]: Non-identity-attack

[EX Q]: Comment: Mr. Sherman... Quoted from Patrick J. Buchanan, We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
What more opportunity is it that the White people need to give to help the Blacks?
If the poor white got this much opportunity there would be no poor white or lower class of white trash people!!
The main problem why black people are not progressing is the, "They owe me factor"!! Get it in your head! No Body Owes You Any Thing!

Talk about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Go to Altoona? And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids?
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America?
[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