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].

I know I shouldn't get worked up over stuff like this, but I HATE this shit. I hate the shirts that say things like "Girls always lead" and "Who run the world? Girls". It makes me feel like these people's ideal world has no place for me or my gender, and you know feminists would absolutely lose their shit if those shirts said "boys" instead.
no

This just makes this subreddit look like any other racist dumpster fire. You want a coherent argument? Saying "black people+power= corruption" is racist.
yes

> I love reminding the salty far right trolls here that their Midwestern hometowns are literal shitholes.    This attitude is so fucking exhausting. I know 'coastal liberal elitism' is a bit of a meme but this pattern of boasting about the abstracted 'economic value' of exclusive cities while dismissing the network of agriculture, manufacturing, and distribution that allows them to thrive is pretty close to colonial.

no

