On my WhatsApp group a resident dropped this comment; “Pity we have to other people’s loud music on a Sunday.” The message was referring to a loud music event taking place at the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium yesterday.
Now in South Africa we are all highly tuned to the possibility of racist or exclusionary speech and, as admin of the group I turned to ask Google Gemini the question whether this comment was; “Racist or not?”
Here is the answer I got back:
The comment is a classic example of ambiguous language that often triggers debate because its intent depends entirely on the speaker’s internal bias and the historical context of the area.
On its face, the sentence is a standard noise complaint. However, in a South African context—and specifically regarding public spaces like the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium—certain phrases can act as “dog whistles.”
Here is a breakdown of the different ways to interpret that message:
1. The Argument for “Not Racist” (Surface Level)
Noise Sensitivity: Many people, regardless of race, are sensitive to loud noise, especially in residential areas.
The “Sunday” Factor: For some, Sunday is a traditional day of rest or religious observance. A complaint about loud music on a Sunday is a common grievance in many cultures worldwide.
General Frustration: If the music was objectively loud enough to disrupt homes far from the stadium, the “other people” could simply refer to “the event organizers and attendees” without any racial subtext.
2. The Argument for “Coded Bias” (The Subtext)
“Othering”: The phrase “other people” is a common linguistic tool for “othering.” Instead of saying “the music from the stadium” or “the concert,” the speaker distances themselves from a specific group. In South Africa, “other people” is often used as a proxy for “people not like us” (racially or culturally).
The “Loud Music” Trope: There is a long-standing, global trope where the music and celebrations of marginalized or “othered” groups are characterized as “noise” or “disturbance,” while events favoured by the dominant culture (like certain sports or festivals) are viewed as “vibrant” or “acceptable.”
Historical Context: In cities like Gqeberha, the use of public spaces is often a flashpoint for tension. If the speaker only complains when the event caters to a specific demographic, but remains silent during other loud events (like rugby matches or different festivals), the bias becomes clearer.
3. Key Indicators of Intent
To determine if the comment was biased, you can look for these patterns in the group:
Consistency: Does this resident complain about all stadium noise (e.g., roar of the crowd during a big match) or only specific cultural/music events?
Language: Does the resident use words like “unproductive,” “those people,” or “civilized” in other posts?
The Reaction: Often, when called out, someone with biased intent will become defensive or use “I’m just a taxpayer” as a shield, whereas someone with a genuine noise complaint will focus on the decibel levels or the time the music ended.
Summary Table
| Element | Interpretation A: Noise Complaint | Interpretation B: Coded Bias |
| “Other people” | Refers to the organizers/attendees. | Acts as a divider between “Us” and “Them.” |
| “Loud music” | A literal description of high volume. | A judgment on the type of celebration. |
| “On a Sunday” | A desire for a quiet day of rest. | A claim that their cultural norms should dominate. |
As a moderator, you have to decide if the comment violates group rules regarding mutual respect or social cohesion. While the comment isn’t “hate speech” in a legal sense, it can certainly be exclusionary and “othering” depending on the spirit in which it was shared.
I then dropped a link to our Neighbourhood Group’s Published WhatsApp Guidelines for further comment and got this back:
The comment can be evaluated against the specific WhatsApp Group Guidelines in three key areas:
1. Hate Speech and PEPUDA (Section C)
The guidelines strictly prohibit messages that “discriminate, disparage, or incite hatred” based on race or ethnic origin.
The “Othering” Aspect: The use of “other people’s” is a linguistic technique known as “othering.” By not referring to the event itself (e.g., “the stadium concert”), the speaker creates a division between “us” (the residents) and “them” (the people at the stadium).
The Risk: If this phrasing is used as a proxy to disparage a group of a different race or culture, it could be seen as violating the spirit of the PEPUDA (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act) clause in your guidelines. While it may not be “hate speech” in a criminal sense, it can be viewed as “unfairly disparaging” depending on the context of the event.
2. General Etiquette and Respect (Section B)
The guidelines require members to “be respectful” and “treat all members with courtesy.”
Implicit Bias: A noise complaint is generally acceptable, but labelling it as a problem caused specifically by “other people” can be interpreted as a lack of respect for the diverse community that uses the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium.
Community Cohesion: The guidelines emphasize “fostering a safe and respectful digital neighbourhood.” Language that implies one group’s cultural or social activities are inherently a “pity” for another group often works against this goal.
3. Service Delivery and Factual Reporting (Section D)
Under “Service Delivery Issues,” the guidelines suggest focusing on “factual reporting” and avoiding “political rants.”
Factual vs. Subjective: A factual comment would be: “The music at the stadium is currently at 95dB and is exceeding the noise permit hours.” * The Violation: The resident’s comment is a subjective value judgment (“Pity we have to…”) rather than a factual report. By cantering the complaint on the people involved rather than the noise levels, the comment moves away from the group’s “Core Purpose” of factual information sharing.
Summary for Moderation
If you are assessing this as an administrator:
Is it “Racist”? It is racially coded or “othering.” It stops short of an overt racial slur, but it carries the hallmarks of exclusionary language that often targets specific demographics in South Africa.
Does it violate the Groups Guidelines? Yes, primarily on the grounds of Respectful Communication and PEPUDA compliance. It disparages a group of people (“others”) rather than addressing a community issue (noise) factually.
Recommendation: You could remind the member that while noise complaints are valid for discussion, the guidelines require all posts to remain respectful and avoid “othering” language that targets specific groups, as per the community’s commitment to a respectful digital environment.
I then asked Gemini to comment on one other ‘difficult’ comment that had been posted on the Group.
One of the replies on the WhatsApp group in reply to the “other peoples’ music comment” was from an incensed neighbour and it went as follows; “I will expose every negative comment from this group on every social media platform”. I can understand the outrage but am looking for a second opinion as to how to handle/fix this?
Handling an “incensed neighbour” who threatens to publicize private group chats is a delicate situation that requires balancing emotional de-escalation with firm group policy. While their outrage stems from a defence of inclusivity, their threat to “expose” the group can create a toxic environment and lead to significant legal and social complications.
Here is a second opinion on how to handle and fix this situation, based on your community guidelines and local context:
1. Address the Violation of Privacy (POPIA)
The neighbour’s threat to “expose” comments on social media is a direct violation of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) as outlined in your guidelines.
The Law: Sharing personal information, including phone numbers or names attached to comments in a private group, without explicit consent is generally unlawful.
The Fix: An administrator should privately remind this neighbour that while their frustration with the “loud music” comment is valid, threatening to share private data externally puts them—and the group—at legal risk.
2. Differentiate Between the “Outrage” and the “Action”
You can validate the neighbour’s feelings without condoning their behaviour.
The Outrage: Their anger is a reaction to the “othering” language you identified earlier, which violates the PEPUDA (Hate Speech) and Respectful Communication clauses of your group.
The Action: The threat to “expose” the group is an act of aggression that disrupts the “Core Purpose” of fostering neighbourhood camaraderie.
The Fix: Acknowledge that the music comment was problematic, but explain that “vigilante” exposure is not the community-sanctioned way to handle it.
3. Redirect to the Formal “Complaint” Channel
Your guidelines state that disagreements should be handled through private reports to admins rather than public arguments.
The Fix: Ask the incensed neighbour to submit a formal, private complaint about the “loud music” comment. This moves the energy from a public threat to a structured administrative process.
4. Public Admin “Reset” Message
To fix the group atmosphere, the admin team should post a neutral but firm “reset” message to the whole group:
Acknowledge the Tension: Remind everyone that the group is for community support and factual alerts.
Reiterate Respect: Point out that language which disparages groups of people (“othering”) is against the code of conduct.
Reiterate Privacy: Remind all members that the group is a private space and that sharing screenshots or member data externally is a breach of POPIA and group rules.
Summary of Actions
| Target | Action | Goal |
| The “Music” Commenter | Private warning about “othering” language. | Prevent subtle bias from becoming the norm. |
| The “Incensed” Neighbour: | Private reminder about POPIA and the ban on external sharing. | Stop the threat of data exposure. |
| The Entire Group | A public reminder of the Core Purpose and Privacy rules. | Restore the “Safe and Respectful” digital environment. |
By shifting the focus from “who is right” to “how we follow the rules,” you de-escalate the personal conflict and remind both parties that they are part of a regulated, respectful community.
Related: Are You Guilty of Using ‘Othering’ Language? | Careful When Invoking the “We Don’t Live in a Township” Speech
