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: Remember when one of the dudes on the boat, Bahr, turned out to be fishy as fuck and that's why they were turned away, outside of the fact that the US had capped immigration quotas? Remember when later in the war several people in the State Department objected to this approach and said we should take in Jews?    Not remotely in the realm of fascism even if there were a bit of shitty xenophobes hanging around. People disagreed and debated this approach the entire war.    I'm going to do your job for you since you're incompetent as usual watermark, interning an entire race and persecuting Italians and Germans is pretty suspect.

yes