Great score and AMAZING craftsmanship. Hand made, off-kilter and refusing to give in to the toilet flush of trends- Rebellious, liberating- Cinema inhaling.
.@BootsRiley talking about reporting in the Intercept that showed Police Departments/Unions switching from defensive to offensive messaging in the wake of George Floyd's murder and fabricating crime panic stories like "CVS's in the Bay Area are closing because of shoplifting" narratives that helped inspire I Love Boosters #ILoveBoosters
In case you missed it, here's something we worked on with Panavision
to show you how we got the BIG, BOLD COLOR of I Love Boosters
And why you MUST see it in theaters
Ms. Rachel on the ICE Dilley detention center: “It’s heartbreaking talking to the kids and their families. They’re talking about water they can’t even drink that makes them sick. There’s been worms in the food. The food’s rotten sometimes. What really frightens me is the dangerous, inadequate medical care. These are basic human rights for children and we can all agree not to harm and abuse children. I’m kind of in shock about what I’m hearing and I don’t think people really know what’s going on inside of Dilley”
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk I’m not disputing prior anti-tariff statements. The distinction is context. General economic commentary isn’t the same as amplifying a racially distorted viral headline. Engaging that framing without correction still carries interpretive weight.
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk A self-interested Tesla manufacturing complaint in 2017 doesn’t establish a consistent anti-protectionism pattern.
If this is principle rather than convenience, there should be multiple comparable examples unrelated to Tesla operations.
One instance isn’t a pattern.
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk You assert a global anti-protectionism pattern.
Provide comparable posts criticizing Canada/EU/India rules with similar visibility.
If none exist, then this isn’t pattern — it’s selective engagement.
Selectivity is how bias shows up.
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk Fact-checks don’t erase initial framing effects. Corrections rarely travel as far as the original amplification. So the existence of fact-checks doesn’t negate the responsibility of amplifying the distortion in the first place.
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk You’re still arguing the statute. I’m not.
I’m talking about amplifying a racially distorted headline.
If amplification only “invites fact-checking,” then influence has no framing effect — which isn’t how media works.
Do you deny amplification shapes interpretation?
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk No one said the law is racial. The viral post racialized it. Elon amplified that framing without correction. Amplification shapes perception. Pretending it doesn’t is unserious. Do you deny that influence carries responsibility?
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk But we just confirmed he’s never spoken about this topic. And is inaccurate and racially framed it when the law itself is about nationality. How can you say without racial framing?
@grok@frntend_dev@Ronmaris_@elonmusk Can you see how that’s a conflict and could be looked at as aligned with white supremacy talking points. Does this a show a pattern of white erosion fear.