He Said What He Said - She Said What She Said

[Edward Williams]

Purpose:

The purpose of this counter-racism science experiment is to find a solution to minimizing gossip while maximizing constructive interaction.

Observed Phenomenon:

People try to get me to talk about other people when those other people are not around.

Hypothesis:

People request information from me about other people when those other people are not around so that they can use the information they receive in a manner that they are able to harm the other people who are not around, and/or, harm me.

Experiment:

In any discussion, when a person is speaking about another person that is not participating in the discussion and the person requests information about what the person said and/or did who is not participating in the discussion, and, it was not stated at the outset of the discussion that the purpose of the discussion was to figure out a way to help the person who was not participating in the discussion without harming anyone else, only present one or more of the following responses:

(1) The person said what they said.
(2) The person did what they did.

Repeat response for each request of information about what someone said and/or what someone did.

Recording Data:

Use whatever recording device you can such as pencil and paper, audio recorder, video recorder, memory, etc., to make sure the interactions between people are recorded.

Expected Results:

(1) The person requesting the information will make one or more additional attempts to get you to give them information about what the person who is not participating in discussion said and/or did.
(2) Once it is seen that your response to the request for information about the person who is not participating in the discussion is one of the experiment responses above and the person requesting the information is not going to get information they can use against the person who is not participating in the discussion without harming anyone else, the discussion about that person will cease.
(3) Once it is seen that your response to the request for information about the person who is not participating in the discussion is one of the experiment responses above and the person requesting the information is not going to get information they can use against the person who is not participating in the discussion without harming anyone else, the person requesting the information will attempt to harm you by attempting to discredit you.
(4) Once it is seen that your response to the request for information about the person who is not participating in the discussion is one of the experiment responses above and the person requesting the information is not going to get information they can use against the person who is not participating in the discussion without harming anyone else, the person requesting the information will attempt to harm you physically.

_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

[Edward Williams]

I ran this experiment when I was being questioned by the HR Director about something that my manager said. My manager, at the time, was a white person.

This experiment not only minimizes conflict between non-white people it also minimizes conflict between white people and non-white people when used correctly.

The HR Director asked me repeatedly what my manager said in my performance appraisal meeting with my manager and my response, repeatedly, was that he said what he said. The only recourse the HR Director had at the time was to call my manager into the meeting.

Once my manager was called into the meeting, the HR Director went immediately into asking my manager questions about what he said. So that my manager would have a point of reference, and staying true to the path of guaranteeing no person is mistreated and also guaranteeing the person who needs help the most get the most help, I level-set with my manager and the HR Director by stating the following:

You have been called into this meeting as a result of the HR Director asking me questions about what you said and/or didn't say in my meeting with you concerning my performance appraisal. My only response to the questions I was being asked by the HR Director about what you stated in the meeting between you and I was that you said what you said. In keeping with the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, due process, it is crucial that you give testimony according to your recollection.

This statement had the following effect:

(1) My manager did not verbally mention anything that he remembered me saying. This is very important because my manager only focused on what he said or didn't say.
(2) Made it extremely difficult for the HR Director and anyone else who joined the meeting to cause conflict between me and my manager.

When people are interrogated they are split up and interrogated. If you have two people who are accused of committing a crime and they are dragged down to what is called police headquarters, they are questioned separately to get them to talk about what the other person did or did not do correctly. This experiment minimizes the chance of one person talking about the other person and focuses the person being asked questions on what they did or did not do. In other words I was saying and my manager was saying, if you want to know what someone else did or did not do you go ask them.

This neutralizes the act of what we call divide and conquer and also what we call snitching and maximizes constructive interaction between people. It is the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) who promote divide and conquer and snitching and gossiping to get the non-white people to go along with it.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

[Edward Williams]

I have been asked on numerous occasions, on the job, about what another non-white person said and/or didn't say.

I have witnessed white people asking one non-white person what another non-white person said. Then going to the other non-white person and asking them what the first non-white person said and also telling them that the first non-white person said such and such about them. And the other non-white person begins to talk about what the first non-white person said. Divide and Conquer. By getting both non-white people to give the white person information about each other the white person is able to conquer both non-white people if they so choose by getting them to work against each other.

Divide and Conquer doesn't mean to separate non-white people by land or by water. It means to pit non-white people against each other in a manner that they works for the white people who practice racism (white supremacy).

Another way this is done is by a white person asking me how I feel about another non-white person. If I say I don't like that person that becomes fuel for the white person if they choose to practice racism (white supremacy). But why are they asking that anyway?

I always respond by saying I don't feel one way or the other about another person on the job. It is my job to make sure that I nor anyone else subverts the Constitution of the United States. Are we about to go down the path to subvert the Constitution?

That usually ends the conversation.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

[counterracism]

He said what she said.

https://twitter.com/CounterRacism_/status/1144639693826473984

[counterracism]

She said what she said.

https://twitter.com/CounterRacism_/status/1144638212788367361

[counterracism]

Statement and Question:He said what he said.

What do YOU have to say about what he said?

Response: I don’t agree

https://twitter.com/CounterRacism_/status/1268212962424172544