Definition: 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].
Input: In light of recent events, I present you with an analogy.    You're at a party in an anonymous metropolitan city. Your friend/romantic partner/family member dragged from whatever the fuck you're doing. Now you're more pissed than a Polygon reader.    So at the party, which is, let's say 25% LGBTQIA (bare with me here) but are otherwise friendly like on TV. Then a idea popped on your head.    It's about the 80s song "It's Raining Men."     You asked the people about the song. The usual suspects would tell you it's a iconic anthem in the queer community. If you play it in public, someone's coming out the next day.    You tell them you hate it. You remember hating that song since childhood.    So you had the bright idea to change what they think about it.    You tell them, "The song is about semen coming out" to much to their shock and horror. You tell them to look closer to the lyrics. Reinterpret the lyrics to fit story you want them to see. You tell them that the song came at height of the AIDS epidemic and that in some nebulous way, is detrimental to the gay community. I tell them the song is everything negative that happened to them.    Cue the angry stares and every urban dictionary insult thrown your way.    That doesn't matter. What does comes after. Over time, a small minority of them will somehow agree with me. Soon they tell people about it those close to them and them to others.     Soon, it would spread to the internet. I don't need to tell what happens next. Celebrities denounce, radio station remove. The whole rigmarole.     This isn't new. You probably know this. Hell, the whole subreddit knows (amongst others) for all I know. Hitler knew, Stalin knew, Ceaser knew.    That's how online journalism works.     How's that for a TED talk?

no