If I were in your shoes, I would probably mention the change in tone/word choice to the lead on the project since you have a good relationship with them. Just mentioning that you noticed the change and aren’t sure about it doesn’t need to be combative, and I would be truly shocked if it cost you the job. Depending on your state it might even be illegal to fire you for something like that.

I personally would not take a stand or refuse to do the voiceover or anything like that. I would make it clear that I would do the voiceover using the script as it is written. I would think of it as providing feedback rather than making demands, which seems like it would be within the purview of a QA reviewer.

This way you can at the very least get more information about the situation - find out whether this was an intentional change. If so, it may be time to start making moves so you can eventually drop this company.

In all US states except for 2, the popular vote determines who ALL the electors are from that state, so the gerrymandering does NOT have a direct impact on the result of the presidential election, or at least not very much (I believe gerrymandering can affect Maine and Nebraska electoral votes, but only a small number of them, much less than the 10% you suggest would be needed).

Gerrymandering DOES impact things like voter ID laws and other policies that can make it harder for certain people to vote, so in that way you could argue that gerrymandering indirectly affects the presidential election.

If you really want to argue that the presidential elections in the US are rigged, you should focus on voting machines I would say. But even then I think it’s a stretch.

I won’t deny the oligarchy thing, but I think it’s a pretty hot take that the election was predetermined.

Occam’s Razor… There are many other possibilities that seem more likely to me. Such as the Biden campaign floundering at the last second - which you could again argue was rigged, but once again, seems to be the less likely thing. You’re suggesting that many people would be in on this conspiracy and that ALL of them would stay quiet. All the thousands of regular citizens who participate in the election process would also have to stay quiet. I know some of those people - they are regular people living regular lives. You’re also supposing that this cohort of dishonest people would find it advantageous to spend a huge amount of resources on elections - it’s pretty incredible how much effort goes into it, and if they already knew what the outcome was going to be, I would think they would act differently (perhaps you argue “that’s the point, just to fool you”).

We start to paint the picture of a conspiracy to control the American people when they are already under control because of capitalism. Everyone would have been under government control regardless of the election outcome. So I don’t understand the supposed motivation for everyone working together to rig the election in Trump’s favor. There are oligarchs who this election result does not favor as well, so I don’t buy that it is just them pulling the strings. Oligarchs have influence no matter the administration, so why would they care to rig the election? Maybe a few of them would rig it to try to get power (see Musk), but it doesn’t make sense that they would all be working together to rig it.

So I don’t buy that the Biden and Kamala campaigns were in on it, and I don’t buy that election workers were in on it.

What makes you so sure the election was rigged??

I bring up blacklisting because it is the clearest demonstration of intentionally starving people that comes to mind. Sure, Stalin wanted collectivization to go off without a hitch. Problem was, there was a hitch. So he decided it would happen anyway, starving people be damned. Imo good governments don’t intentionally starve people in order to achieve their goals.

To me your argument boils down to “the ends justify the means.”

How do you defend the “blacklisted” villages? I don’t detect any remorse in the material you have cited, just concern over making sure his policies are being properly enacted. It seems pretty clear to me that Stalin considered the loss of life in Ukraine to be worth it in order to drive his agenda forward - why else would he have allowed policies that forbid farmers themselves from eating the food from the fields they tended? Why else would he have allowed policies keeping farmers from traveling for any reason? To ensure that they produced food for the rest of the union, which would focus on industrial output. You can argue that he was right - without such rapid industrialization, they almost certainly would have lost to the Nazis imo.

Also, don’t conflate socialism with collectivism. I never said that the gains made in terms of education, life expectancy, etc. were possible without socialist policies. You can have socialism without collectivism/without stalinism. I think it’s much better that way.

*there wasn’t a country better for the working class that survived

Imo you can’t just ignore all the people who died as a result of the rapid industrialization and collectivization. And how great is your life if you have to change everything about what you say and how you act just to appease party officials?

I don’t want to ignore all the great things that happened during the Soviet era. I think you’re right about better access to education and many of these other things, but there are so many asterisks.

I argue that the same things could have been achieved without collectivization and without so much political violence. Social support programs are great, but they should be available to everyone, regardless of how much you support the prevailing political party.

And just how sure are you that Stalin would have gone back in time to prevent the Holodomor? I’m unconvinced - it quelled an inconvenient uprising.

If you look at the holodomor I think it’s hard to continue painting the Soviet Union as having uplifted the proletariat. Soviets starved their people to achieve rapid industrialization - a tradeoff that most of those who died would probably not have agreed with. IIRC most historians say that collectivization was a horrible failure and was not good for the working class.

First hand accounts of life during stalinism make it clear that people had to develop weird mannerisms to avoid making it seem like they were disloyal/anti-party; basically everyone walking on eggshells all the time.

The conversation around “tankies” reminds me heavily of “neolibs” - loosely defined in the minds of the folks discussing them. Basically a catch-all term for your own idea of what a liberal outgroup should be.

My gf told me that people are suspicious of me because I don’t use regular social media :(