Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

Comment: Allaha: "Nobody said 'all.'"

You did, but maybe you're not aware that you did. These are your words: "In 2013, A BLACK was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder." (Emphasis added.)

Of course you didn't mean "all blacks," but by your choice of words, you imply that ANY black -- and by extension, ALL blacks -- are six times more likely to commit murder. The further implication is that, since we can't trust some blacks, we shouldn't trust any.

Words are powerful, and we have to be careful about how we use them. The issue isn't what you meant to say but how your message is perceived by others. As a reader, I'm trying to give you feedback on how your words came across to me and perhaps to others, too.
Identity-attack