Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

To be fair, calling a woman "cute" or "adorable" in a professional setting is inappropriate.         However the writer goes beyond that, and gives a shopping list of petty grievances, including:         \- Scarlett Johansson's "yellowface" performance    \- Being mistaken for a "South Asian" person (sure, she, as a Korean was mistaken for an  Indian)    \- White people spread racism unknowingly through compliments and "microaggressions"         It's almost a bid for SJW victimhood cred disguised as an opinion piece.
yes

Mayos do more shootings, sky is blue, more at 11
yes

Honestly wasn't salt the main concern? It seemed pretty obvious it was going to end up better for low tax states, but be kind of shitty for CA and NY specifically.  It seemed like it was very much trying to target democrats and make them pay more.     The big thing too is that in those states though, there are people making low 6 figs that barely make rent because of absurd urban cost of living and that's just where their job is.    there was quite a bit of really nice stuff in there though like letting elderly be counted as dependents.

no

