Support NeoGAF

[Maxim726X]

The part where Milo spouted transphobic shit and Maher agreed with him

Was that during the interview, or during the panel?

I didn't watch the panel segment yet.

 

[plagiarize]

I want to stop him from exposing another woman, or immigrant, or whoever he decides to set his sights on next and ruining their lives. He has a fucking platform already, I'm trying to protect his future victims!

I'm sure transgender people across the country feel fucking protected that the guy just went on TV, calmly spouted a lot of untrue anti transgender bullshit, and didn't get taken to task for it. I'm sure they aren't remotely worried about how people that saw that shit might react.

I am not saying that he shouldn't get taken to task for the horrendous shit he has done. But you aren't protecting transgender people here. Criticize his hateful rhetoric. Argue against it. Stand up for transgender people. Protest him every where he goes. Just don't try to shut him down. Don't get violent.

And if you are in a position to choose whether to give him a platform or not. For fucks sake do not give him a platform.

 

[Easy_D]

What?! So because he only associates himself with Nazis and helps their agenda in every way possible, for some supposedly selfish reasons he doesn't deserve the same treatment as them?

Right? It's like "He's not a nazi! He's just a nazi supporter and collaborator! Don't put him in the same camp!"

 

[Muffin1611]

Do you want to make yourself feel better, or do you want to stop this asshole?

You've got to tailor your approach to these people to whatever works best against them. You don't handle trolls the same way you handle Nazis. That isn't letting one off the hook.

Both are dangerous. If one attack works on a Nazi, but only gives the troll more and more of a platform, maybe don't use that attack on the troll? Because surely the goal is to stop the fucking troll? Not get him on national television to spout his bullshit.

Efforts to stop this troll haven't worked so far, and almost certainly have played into his hands. So stop.

If the way you are trying to stop him reaching his audience is just giving him a bigger and bigger audience, you are only making it worse. Open your goddamn eyes.

How the fuck differs the troll who is friends with Nazis, who spreads Nazi bullshit, who supports Nazi agenda at every turn from a fucking Nazi? Right: Not at fucking all. He should be called a Nazi, and I will be goddamn happy if he gets hit in the face like other Nazis, because that is what he is. Regardless of him seeing himself as "troll" or having any ulterior moves behind it.

To your latter point of not giving him a bigger audience: I'm confused, should people like Maher let people like Milo on their shows or not? I'm saying that they shouldn't, and your last point sounds the same. I either missed the context or you're agreeing with me on that.

 

[plagiarize]

Right? It's like "He's not a nazi! He's just a nazi supporter and collaborator! Don't put him in the same camp!"

He might be a Nazi. He might not. I can't tell. He has 100% in the past attached himself to causes he doesn't remotely believe in, in order to increase his visibility and audience.

I absolutely want to stop him, and feel very strongly that we need to use different tactics against him than we need to use against Richard Spencer, because the tactics that work against Spencer do not work against the troll.

I am very confused how people posting on a message board of all people don't get how to handle trolls.

 

[Breads]

So what am I supposed to find objectionable about the interview?

Seemed pretty tame to me.

I didn't watch the main portion. I did catch the overtime segment on youtube though and that's where the shit where the shit went down. Milo, among other things, made a move to normalize transphobia and Maher agreed with him.

 

[Muffin1611]

Right? It's like "He's not a nazi! He's just a nazi supporter and collaborator! Don't put him in the same camp!"

These people should take a look at the NS trials, for fucks sake.

 

[Toxi]

So what am I supposed to find objectionable about the interview?

Seemed pretty tame to me.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

To be fair that wasn't in the interview.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Try, or do not try. And I see a whole lot of do not try. The failure here is your assumption that people cannot be swayed. And when you treat people like that, they'll "go fuck themselves" in the voting booth, give us inaccurate polling data, and give us Trump's America. There's literally no progress there. Actually, decades worth of back-stepping. You're not doing any good.

You wanna know something that definitely didn't help? Doing what CNN and other media outlets did the entire election - holding two things that aren't remotely equal as being similarly good/bad, both with Trump and Hillary, and with Trump's surrogates and other commentators. You're doing the exact same thing here, but bigotry is not worth discussing as if it were a valid opinion.

So... just shout and then do nothing? How's that going for us all right now, hmmm?

Yeeeeeah, you're not on any side except for the one that lets you get on the high horse so everyone can see your finger wagging. You're not helping.

 

[Orayn]

He might be a Nazi. He might not. I can't tell. He has 100% in the past attached himself to causes he doesn't remotely believe in, in order to increase his visibility and audience.

I absolutely want to stop him, and feel very strongly that we need to use different tactics against him than we need to use against Richard Spencer, because the tactics that work against Spencer do not work against the troll.

I am very confused how people posting on a message board of all people don't get how to handle trolls.

Many message boards handle trolls by banning them. Just don't let them talk at all.

The equivalent for Milo would be not having him on the air and canceling his speaking engagements. Deny him every possible opportunity to communicate with the general public. Are we at least on the same page with this part?

 

[legacyzero]

You edited that in.

The whole post is one big edit 😶

There's absolutely NOTHING to discuss about that sort of ignorance, bigotry, and transphobia.

So... just shout and then do nothing? How's that going for us all right now, hmmm?

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Thank you for posting this. Outrageous.

 

[Orayn]

So... just shout and then do nothing? How's that going for us all right now, hmmm?

Are you operating under the assumption that Trump won because "the left was too liberal and got too mad about him," rather than Hillary being an awful candidate who made some major miscalculations in her campaign?

 

[Deleted member 10571]

What's that repeated part in the end?

 

[excelsiorlef]

What's that repeated part in the end?

Maher's shrug...

 

[MechanicalWall]

Half of the people in this thread be like

 

[plagiarize]

How the fuck differs the troll who is friends with Nazis, who spreads Nazi bullshit, who supports Nazi agenda at every turn from a fucking Nazi? Right: Not at fucking all. He should be called a Nazi, and I will be goddamn happy if he gets hit in the face like other Nazis, because that is what he is. Regardless of him seeing himself as "troll" or having any ulterior moves behind it.

To your latter point of not giving him a bigger audience: I'm confused, should people like Maher let people like Milo on their shows or not? I'm saying that they shouldn't, and your last point sounds the same. I either missed the context or you're agreeing with me on that.

What I want, is for that troll not to get a platform.

I don't want him talking to one person, let alone three hundred, or one hundred thousand. If somewhere around here was thinking of giving him a platform, I would contact them and urge them to reconsider. I would tell them the horrible things he has done in the past.

If they gave him a platform anyway I would turn up in support of the transgender community, and I would do whatever I could to show people that his rhetoric was wrong.

But I would also do whatever I could to keep the protest peaceful, and to keep it from turning into the kind of clusterfuck he loves.

Because yes, for whatever reason, he is spouting neo Nazi rhetoric, and I don't want that spouted. But you have to be aware of the nature of the beast, and use the right approach for the individual.

Anything that makes him the story, he will use to gain a bigger platform for that rhetoric.

Because he is a narcissistic sociopath who will hurt anyone to feed his own ego.

He doesn't care about helping Nazis. He cares about how many books he sells and how many people know who he is.

And that means we have to use a different *approach*. Berkeley didn't work because it got violent and let him play the victim. Giving him a live interview hoping he'll hang himself with what he says won't work. We argue against his rhetoric. We don't make it about him.

He wants to enrage us, to make us look irrational. That's his goal. So we don't play that game. We protest him. We peacefully discourage people from giving him a platform. If someone gives him a platform we combat what he says, but not him personally.

We treat him differently because he is a very different type of enemy. He is still an enemy. But just as you fight guerillas differently to terrorists, we must fight him differently to someone like Richard Spencer.

 

[Killa Sasa]

People can be swayed. It's a lot easier to sway them when you're not constantly letting them be exposed and/or exposing themselves to the low level (or sometimes turnt way the fuck up) radiation of normalized white supremacy via mainstream outlets.

Now the argument here seems to always butt up against what I was talking about earlier - this fucking crazy misconception that the only way to neutralize that normalization is to calmly counterpoint its idiocy on a mainstream outlet while it's still on camera and getting equal time to speak.

Fascist White Nationalism does not need to be on TV in order for you to sway people against it.

And if your only argument for letting it hold that equal airtime is that "well, you're being unfair to Fascist White Nationalism if you don't" then I guess I just...

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with being unfair to Fascist White Nationalism? How is this a stance that people can look at negatively?

Our racist-ass country FOUGHT A WAR TO STOP IT in the 1940s.

It's 70+ years later and you're arguing that it's unfair to speak against it unless it's provided equal airtime on TV to make its own case?

C'mon.

This is what gets me about some of these jokers. How many of their grandparents/family line died to either escape or to literally kill proponents of this shit?

 

[Oh God Why]

Some people in here need to understand that Bill Maher is an entertainer first and foremost. Real Time (and other late night shows such as Seth Meyers, Colbert, Last Week Tonight) are political shows to make us laugh. But they stretch, distort, and obfuscate the truth for the sake of making a punch-line or for being entertaining. They're satire, not to be taken seriously or as the actual news.

Milo was brought on Real Time most likely because it would bring in high ratings for the show. Many of his detractors and supporters came to see what he would do on the show. I dont think they ever really cared about shutting down Milo's hateful rhetoric, despite what the pr said. Bill and the show's producers thought it would have been entertaining to have Milo on, because that's what these shows are.

Just entertainment.

 

[MechanicalWall]

Some people in here need to understand that Bill Maher is an entertainer first and foremost. Real Time (and other late night shows such as Seth Meyers, Colbert, Last Week Tonight) are political shows to make us laugh. But they stretch, distort, and obfuscate the truth for the sake of making a punch-line or for being entertaining. They're satire, not to be taken seriously or as the actual news.

Milo was brought on Real Time most likely because it would bring in high ratings for the show. Many of his detractors and supporters came to see what he would do on the show. I dont think they ever really cared about shutting down Milo's hateful rhetoric, despite what the pr said. Bill and the show's producers thought it would have been entertaining to have Milo on, because that's what these shows are.

Just entertainment.

Than why am I not entertained

 

[akira28]

Some people in here need to understand that Bill Maher is an entertainer first and foremost. Real Time (and other late night shows such as Seth Meyers, Colbert, Last Week Tonight) are political shows to make us laugh. But they stretch, distort, and obfuscate the truth for the sake of making a punch-line or for being entertaining. They're satire, not to be taken seriously or as the actual news.

Milo was brought on Real Time most likely because it would bring in high ratings for the show. Many of his detractors and supporters came to see what he would do on the show. I dont think they ever really cared about shutting down Milo's hateful rhetoric, despite what the pr said. Bill and the show's producers thought it would have been entertaining to have Milo on, because that's what these shows are.

Just entertainment.

do they obfuscate the truth and can you provide some examples? and i don't mean Colbert's satire of conservative news hosts, but the subject matter discussed.

 

[Oersted]

Some people in here need to understand that Bill Maher is an entertainer first and foremost. Real Time (and other late night shows such as Seth Meyers, Colbert, Last Week Tonight) are political shows to make us laugh. But they stretch, distort, and obfuscate the truth for the sake of making a punch-line or for being entertaining. They're satire, not to be taken seriously or as the actual news.

Milo was brought on Real Time most likely because it would bring in high ratings for the show. Many of his detractors and supporters came to see what he would do on the show. I dont think they ever really cared about shutting down Milo's hateful rhetoric, despite what the pr said. Bill and the show's producers thought it would have been entertaining to have Milo on, because that's what these shows are.

Just entertainment.

That is the problem

 

[Silver Arrows]

Half of the people in this thread be like

exactly, smh

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Maher's shrug...

oh lol, I was just staring at Yiannopoulos' mouth

 

[karasu]

Milo is the low brow type of guest you would see on Sally Jesse Raphael or Jerry Springer. I would never expect him on a show with serious people like Real Time. Bill Maher's contrarian tendencies have fucked him up.

 

[Cipherr]

Yeeeeeah, you're not on any side except for the one that lets you get on the high horse so everyone can see your finger wagging. You're not helping.

This. Im so done with this nonsense.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Just entertainment.

Putting ratings and entertainment above all else is what the news media did throughout this whole election. Their intentions don't matter because the end result was and still is harmful regardless.

Same with Samantha Bee bringing Glenn Beck on to her show. It was funny for some people, but ultimately it was really stupid, especially when Beck went right back to being his usual shitty self.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

And that means we have to use a different *approach*. Berkeley didn't work because it got violent and let him play the victim.

He wants to enrage us, to make us look irrational. That's his goal.

we must fight him differently to someone like Richard Spencer.

I want to speak to these points specifically, I've been trying to address them somewhat throughout the thread—these points all seem to just assume that "letting him play the victim" is a thing completely out of our control. But it isn't. He can play the victim all he wants but you don't have to reward that bad acting, either.

A lot of the time, people will hear these bad-faith proponents of white supremacy claim they've been aggrieved, and we just... let them have that. We don't push back against this false claim (as all their claims are, btw), we just let them have it for no other real reason than they say its theirs.

"You're acting irrationally!"
"..shit. I guess we are."

Why is that the "logical" response to a white supremacist acting injured when their irrational, cancerous way of being is directly fought off?

He's not really all that different from Richard Spencer, and certainly not different enough to necessitate some sort of all-new playbook. Keeping Spencer off television helped minimize his negative effects to where one person socking him in the face on inauguration day seriously damaged both him and his platform.

But of course our willingness to cede our moral superiority to whiny White Supremacists is such (and so automatic) that even one of them getting punched once was subject for weeks of debate and handwringing.

There's this mythologized, mythical notion of what "the high road" entails, and it's not only applied incorrectly in a lot of ways, it's unrealistic as well.

 

[Muffin1611]

I want to speak to these points specifically, I've been trying to address them somewhat throughout the thread—these points all seem to just assume that "letting him play the victim" is a thing completely out of our control. But it isn't. He can play the victim all he wants but you don't have to reward that bad acting, either.

A lot of the time, people will hear these bad-faith proponents of white supremacy claim they've been aggrieved, and we just... let them have that. We don't push back against this false claim (as all their claims are, btw), we just let them have it for no other real reason than they say its theirs.

"You're acting irrationally!"
"..shit. I guess we are."

Why is that the "logical" response to a white supremacist acting injured when their irrational, cancerous way of being is directly fought off?

He's not really all that different from Richard Spencer, and certainly not different enough to necessitate some sort of all-new playbook. Keeping Spencer off television helped minimize his negative effects to where one person socking him in the face on inauguration day seriously damaged both him and his platform.

But of course our willingness to cede our moral superiority to whiny White Supremacists is such (and so automatic) that even one of them getting punched once was subject for weeks of debate and handwringing.

There's this mythologized, mythical notion of what "the high road" entails, and it's not only applied incorrectly in a lot of ways, it's unrealistic as well.

Quality post. Thank you.

 

[Makai]

So was it any good?

 

[Sianos]

Try, or do not try. And I see a whole lot of do not try. The failure here is your assumption that people cannot be swayed. And when you treat people like that, they'll "go fuck themselves" in the voting booth, give us inaccurate polling data, and give us Trump's America. There's literally no progress there. Actually, decades worth of back-stepping. You're not doing any good.

No, a person does not "try" when they step up to the plate to debate a white nationalist. They either can successfully and resolutely dismantle that hateful ideology, or they don't get to debate the white nationalist.

The goal here was to demonstrate why white nationalism is disgusting and that the humanity of minorities is not up for "debate" by summarily routing their malignant views: it was not to try and find common ground with them or give them a chance to sway us that maybe they make a few valid points against the humanity of minorities. I'm starting to see us sliding further down into random unqualified people having to successfully defend their humanity against masters of nazi rhetoric, or else "we lose".

Apparently "arguing with nazis" is turning out to be more of a slippery slope than "not arguing with nazis". Not accusing you of being at fault here, just making a general point. I'm almost certain you personally have put in the effort to properly put white nationalists in their place, which I respect.

 

[Breads]

Some people in here need to understand that Bill Maher is an entertainer first and foremost. Real Time (and other late night shows such as Seth Meyers, Colbert, Last Week Tonight) are political shows to make us laugh. But they stretch, distort, and obfuscate the truth for the sake of making a punch-line or for being entertaining. They're satire, not to be taken seriously or as the actual news.

Milo was brought on Real Time most likely because it would bring in high ratings for the show. Many of his detractors and supporters came to see what he would do on the show. I dont think they ever really cared about shutting down Milo's hateful rhetoric, despite what the pr said. Bill and the show's producers thought it would have been entertaining to have Milo on, because that's what these shows are.

Just entertainment.

So profit motives... makes it okay? It protects you from criticism?

There's this mythologized, mythical notion of what "the high road" entails, and it's not only applied incorrectly in a lot of ways, it's unrealistic as well.

My main gripe with the self serving high roading is that it is constantly exploited by people like Milo. That's why it's such paraded virtue. It convinces the speaker that they are better than both sides while giving the bigot the advantage over the real victims.

 

[D i Z]

The Wilmore thing is great as being a little more cathartic for those of us who know what a shitstain Milo is, but other than that it's pointless. Nobody inclined to agree with Milo is turned away from that. Hell, the fact that it came from a black man probably pushed their support even more.

I wouldn't say that. It shows the spineless hand wringers who have zero convictions but a whole lot of complacent whining what a line in the sand looks like.
It shows some of the anonymous edge lords out there that people are sick of their shit and that the escalation that they've been needling for has happened. Next moves have to be thought out and judged whether or not it's all really worth the effort, or else risk things getting volatile.

 

[akira28]

nazis assume we will be polite, and catch hands. then they cry about it and assume they'll get sympathy. they need to catch a boot in reply. you don't get to abuse the mores of the society youre trying to destroy.

 

[Oh God Why]

Than why am I not entertained

For the same reason that conservatives don't find many liberal comedians entertaining, despite the fact that they are also entertainers! I also say this fully aware that Milo's views are far more damaging than the liberal comedians that exist today.

 

[Biff]

This thread has 125,000 views.

Milo won.

 

[Maxim726X]

That wasn't a part of the interview... That looks like the overtime segment.

And that's not a 'I agree with that statement' shrug, it's a 'I have no opinion on that statement because I don't know the facts about it and as such cannot offer a rebuttal' shrug.

That's what people are up in arms about? I'm sure people are going to correct him and he will mention that he was wrong to not challenge him about it on the spot... But there's a real possibility he just didn't know.

 

[plagiarize]

I want to speak to these points specifically, I've been trying to address them somewhat throughout the thread—these points all seem to just assume that "letting him play the victim" is a thing completely out of our control. But it isn't. He can play the victim all he wants but you don't have to reward that bad acting, either.

A lot of the time, people will hear these bad-faith proponents of white supremacy claim they've been aggrieved, and we just... let them have that. We don't push back against this false claim (as all their claims are, btw), we just let them have it for no other real reason than they say its theirs.

"You're acting irrationally!"
"..shit. I guess we are."

Why is that the "logical" response to a white supremacist acting injured when their irrational, cancerous way of being is directly fought off?

He's not really all that different from Richard Spencer, and certainly not different enough to necessitate some sort of all-new playbook. Keeping Spencer off television helped minimize his negative effects to where one person socking him in the face on inauguration day seriously damaged both him and his platform.

But of course our willingness to cede our moral superiority to whiny White Supremacists is such (and so automatic) that even one of them getting punched once was subject for weeks of debate and handwringing.

There's this mythologized, mythical notion of what "the high road" entails, and it's not only applied incorrectly in a lot of ways, it's unrealistic as well.

I don't want him on television. At all.

Berkeley put him on television. I don't think discouraging violent protest against a troll who loves to play the victim is any kind of high road.

I didn't do any hand wringing over Spencer. The guy is an avowed white supremacist who has called for genocide. He can get punched and I will never have a problem with it.

Shining a light on what a shit bag Spencer is, hasn't given him more of a platform. He doesn't know how to manipulate the coverage like that British troll. His goal isn't to get himself more TV coverage.

This isn't about moral high ground. It's about what works against this fucker. His name was out of the news. His book tour wasn't getting much publicity at all. His book sales were dwindling.

Then Berkeley.

Just understand what he wants, and why we need to take a different approach with him, that's all I'm trying to say.

Seeing his name coming out of people's mouths who had no idea who he was pre Berkeley utterly pains me. And the people I know on the right who have just become aware of him, sure as shit don't see him as some dangerous extremist. They don't see through him at all yet.

And I think many on the left don't yet realize that they are giving him exactly what he wants every time they generate controversy around him.

Just as I don't think anyone defending Bill Maher for having him on the show truly understands how quick witted and brilliantly manipulative this fucker is.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

That wasn't a part of the interview... That looks like the overtime segment.

And that's not a 'I agree with that statement' shrug, it's a 'I have no opinion on that statement because I don't know the facts about it and as such cannot offer a rebuttal' shrug.

That's what people are up in arms about? I'm sure people are going to correct him and he will mention that he was wrong to not challenge him about it on the spot... But there's a real possibility he just didn't know.

Why is it every time I look in these threads the first reply I always see is some defending this shit?

Wilmore should have kicked Milos teeth in and called it a night. I would have bailed him out.

 

[Breads]

That wasn't a part of the interview... That looks like the overtime segment.

And that's not a 'I agree with that statement' shrug, it's a 'I have no opinion on that statement because I don't know the facts about it and as such cannot offer a rebuttal' shrug.

That's what people are up in arms about? I'm sure people are going to correct him and he will mention that he was wrong to not challenge him about it on the spot... But there's a real possibility he just didn't know.

Or care.

The "it's not unreasonable" response informs the shrug.

 

[NYR]

This thread has 125,000 views.

Milo won.

This thread has more posts than the Real Time thread which is 6 years old and still active. Outrageous and ridiculous.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=424811

 

[Maxim726X]

Why is it every time I look in these threads the first reply I always see is some defending this shit?

Huh.

Pointing out that Maher didn't know the underlying facts is defending it?

I literally said in the same post that because those facts are wrong, that he will be corrected by his fans and will likely apologize for not fighting him back in person.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

The part where Milo spouted transphobic shit and Maher agreed with him, for starters.

Apart from the fact that Milo got on at all.

Transphobic, homophobic, racist. And when he was called in it he went whining to Maher about how the panel was stupid.

 

[Killa Sasa]

A lot of the time, people will hear these bad-faith proponents of white supremacy claim they've been aggrieved, and we just... let them have that. We don't push back against this false claim (as all their claims are, btw), we just let them have it for no other real reason than they say its theirs.

"You're acting irrationally!"
"..shit. I guess we are."

Why is that the "logical" response to a white supremacist acting injured when their irrational, cancerous way of being is directly fought off?

Exactly. There doesn't need to be a discussion thereafter with someone pushing this victimhood nonsense in defense of nazism/bigotry/whatever pedantic term they'd like to use.

We're being "mean" to supremacists/bigots?

 

[Oh God Why]

So profit motives... makes it okay? It protects you from criticism?

How did you infer that from my post? Because I did not state anywhere that it makes it okay. It doesn't. To both of your questions.

 

[plagiarize]

Why is it every time I look in these threads the first reply I always see is some defending this shit?

Wilmore should have kicked Milos teeth in and called it a night. I would have bailed him out.

Don't give him the opportunity to play the victim.

Listen, if you put me in the same room as him, I'm not sure I wouldn't end up trying to beat the shit out of him myself. I don't doubt that he could completely get under my skin and make me lose my shit.

But open your eyes to understanding that he is actively trying to provoke reactions like that, because he knows exactly how to use them to his own benefit.

 

[Orayn]

That wasn't a part of the interview... That looks like the overtime segment.

And that's not a 'I agree with that statement' shrug, it's a 'I have no opinion on that statement because I don't know the facts about it and as such cannot offer a rebuttal' shrug.

That's what people are up in arms about? I'm sure people are going to correct him and he will mention that he was wrong to not challenge him about it on the spot... But there's a real possibility he just didn't know.

That shrug wasn't the only thing.

“That’s not unreasonable,” Maher said in response to Yiannopoulos saying, “I think women and girls should be protected from having men who are confused about their sexual identities in their bathrooms."

 

[NYR]

That wasn't a part of the interview... That looks like the overtime segment.

And that's not a 'I agree with that statement' shrug, it's a 'I have no opinion on that statement because I don't know the facts about it and as such cannot offer a rebuttal' shrug.

That's what people are up in arms about? I'm sure people are going to correct him and he will mention that he was wrong to not challenge him about it on the spot... But there's a real possibility he just didn't know.

I had to google it after he said it as I didn't know either. Obviously horseshit, but I wouldn't say either way without knowing the facts. I had no idea if it was true or not either.

 

[Maxim726X]

Or care.

The "it's not unreasonable" response informs the shrug.

Okay, so we can't assume that he is uninformed about the subject, but we can assume that he doesn't care.

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, here.

That shrug wasn't the only thing.

Ohhhhh.

Oh I didn't see that. Okay, that's pretty fucked up. My apologies.