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: Christianity was aggressive removed from pubic school but Islam has been welcomed with open arms. There is a huge hypocrisy by both the School board and Muslims. Just like animals, some religions are more equal than others
Identity-attack

Comment: The first rule for the TSA. Look at white folks before all others. They're the most dangerous. And the most angry.
Identity-attack

Comment: I think that it should not even have been necessary to identify all her bull-shit in the interviews; she should have been excluded upfront.

Her CV shows she was neither the best candidate nor did her career demonstrate the most basic legal experience that the PP role would require.

Anybody with an LLB degree can apply to the High Court to be included on the 'roll' of advocates. Unless you actually practice law, it is disingenuous to call yourself an advocate when you apply for a job requiring legal expertise although of course you can do so.

During the interview, the only relevant question should have been what she has done as an advocate that qualified her for the role.
Non-identity-attack