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: I live in Utah, where the polygamy a couple generations ago has created some interesting population dynamics. You had these huge families where everyone was related to at least one person, and that's ended up inescapably propagating down the line because most people are still living and marrying in the same part of the state their ancestors were. It's also why the LDS church keeps a huge geneology database - back when it was established they were trying to figure out who was related to who.    Anecdotally my brother married a distant cousin without realizing it (their kids are fine fortunately), and I've got some other cousins who are having a lot of children with cleft palates and hip dysplasia problems, and I suspect they're probably related on some level as well. 2-3% increase in birth defects doesn't seem like it's so bad until you see it happening to people you know and you see the pain and  the costs.    That said, they have every right to keep having kids as is the mormon wont, and they'll just keep paying for the surgeries on infants. I suppose it's similar for other people who find they're both at an increased risk for deformity even without the ancestral relations.

no