Episode 1313 Scott Adams: Wokeness Cult Deprogramming, CNN Cancels Abe Lincoln, North Korea Misses Trump
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Propaganda from The Intercept
Cult awareness classes?
Florida, spring break and COVID
Margaret Sullivan on female journalist harassment
Wokeness, not all bad, but gone too far
Weight issues
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Are you awake? Did you set your clocks if you live someplace where you have to do that?
Well, if you did, you're here and you're ready for the best part of the day.
Coffee with Scott Adams.
And to make it special, all you need is a cup of margarita glass, a tank of chalice, a stein, a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid I like.
Coffee. And join me now for the...
I'm so tired.
For the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And you're about to experience it.
It'll be special. Watch.
Go. Have you ever had this experience where you go to bed...
And I have this weird thing where I hate to sleep.
I hate sleeping.
And the reason is that when I'm asleep, I feel like it's like being dead.
You're just missing something.
I'd rather be awake and enjoy life.
And I've had this problem lately where I'll wake up and I'll try to guess what time it is.
And I'll think, I don't know, I feel like...
I feel like it's time to get up.
I could probably get up, and then I'll check the clock to see if how I feel is matching the time on the clock.
And the last couple of nights, I wake up and I think, yeah, I think I could get up now.
It's probably early, but I think I could just get up.
And it's not even the next day.
It's still the night before.
Like, I'll wake up at 11.30pm, and I'll think, God, I feel like it's time to get up.
And this morning, I just said, screw it, and I just got up.
So, we're not working on too much sleep here.
The Intercept has a story about white supremacy and militia groups, and it says this in a tweet.
The white supremacy and militia groups were growing under Obama, facilitated by social media and in relation to America having its first black president.
But once Trump got in there, the ranks grew much quicker, and there were more organizations.
Do you see the propaganda?
Where's the part that says that this growth in white supremacy is because of Trump?
Because they kind of suggest That it's because of Trump.
But what they said was technically correct, which is that once he got in there, maybe by coincidence, maybe by causation, white supremacy went up.
If you don't know that it's causation, I don't feel like you should be hinting that in a tweet.
And isn't it...
If you were to compare these two hypotheses...
One is that the number of white supremacists went up because of Trump, and then the other is that it went up for the same reason that Trump got elected.
In other words, there were forces that caused Trump to rise at the same time those forces caused this other thing to go up.
How do you know one causes the other versus they're both caused by the same thing?
Because it's easy to imagine that, let's say, unrestricted immigration would be bothering people whether Trump became president or not.
What would you guess is the number of white supremacists under?
Wait for it.
Biden. Do you think we'll ever see a tweet that says the number of white supremacists went up during Biden's presidency?
And would they suggest that there's a reason for it, which is that Biden is president?
I don't think so.
I think it's pretty clear that this is just propaganda.
And white supremacy is sort of the perfect boogeyman.
Because it has all the qualities you want, which is people are primed to believe it.
So that's the first thing. You don't want to sell a story that people are not primed to already believe.
So people want to believe that this is a problem.
I'm not saying it isn't.
I'm just saying that it has these qualities.
We're primed to believe it.
We have lots of anecdotes to support it.
So there will be plenty of stories of an individual who did a white supremacist thing or was a white supremacist.
So check. Got that.
It can't be measured, which is really important.
Because his claim is that it went up under Trump.
How do you measure it exactly?
What exactly went up?
Membership? Can you measure that?
Is there some kind of published membership logs of white supremacists?
Or is it the number of violent things that happened that were attributed to them?
I don't know. But as long as you can't measure, and you're sure it's there, and you see anecdotes of it, you can very easily be convinced it's a pretty big deal.
Sort of like how Russia collusion was sold to you.
It had just the right elements to make you think, well, I'm primed to believe it.
And, you know, because I can't explain how Trump could have won in 2016.
And you can't really measure it, you can't find it, but you can find all these anecdotes of, well, there was that time that Flynn had a conversation with somebody, right?
So it has all the right qualities.
And then, best of all, it slimes all Trump supporters.
So it's politically expedient, because it makes Republicans look bad, It's kind of perfect.
It checks all the boxes for a perfect fake news narrative for the coming years.
Interestingly, the idea of doing rapid, cheap testing for coronavirus has now, for some reason, I don't know why lately, could it be Biden became president?
Maybe that's why. But suddenly it's popular.
Major publications are writing how it could be a big deal and it could change everything.
But there's a whole article on it.
I can't remember if it was the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.
But the part that I read doesn't mention the default assumption, which is the FDA is corrupt and that's why We don't already have these tests.
Because we've never heard a good reason that we don't have them.
There doesn't seem to be a physical problem why we can't have them, nor is there a logical problem.
They just won't allow it.
I think the requirements for reporting and something else are what the reasons are, but they're not actual reasons.
They're facts, but they're not reasons that would argue against it.
So now it looks like all the smart people are catching on.
Almost, what, nine months or so?
At least six months after, you know, Michael Mina and a lot of people on social media were saying, you either need to do this or tell us why you're not doing this.
Because it seems so obviously like a good thing.
You've got to at least explain why you're not doing it.
And that never happened. It still hasn't happened.
So... The default presumption is the FDA is deeply corrupt.
And here's...
Let me give you a persuasion lesson here.
Here's what I tweeted about that.
I said about the story about the rapid testing.
I said, this story doesn't address the default assumption that some sort of massive corruption with the FDA has prevented rapid testing so far, probably killing a quarter million people.
So that's the persuasion part.
Do I know that the lack of rapid testing would have saved, let's say, half of the people who have died already, which would be a quarter of a million people in the United States alone?
Do I know that to be true?
Of course not. But is it fair to say it could have, or that it probably would have?
Well, that's an opinion.
But by putting a number on it, It makes it stickier for persuasion.
Because you want to argue against the number, right?
So if you're on the other side, you're like, quarter million?
No way. It's probably no more than 50,000.
In which case, I win the argument.
Because I'm arguing that we should have done it.
I'm not really arguing the number.
So if I can make you argue the number, 250,000, that's way too big.
Then I've already won the main argument, which is that we should have done it before.
Apparently the Biden administration has been reaching out to North Korea to just get some talks going, and North Korea has so far just ignored them.
You just ignore them.
Apparently Biden is so boring that Kim Jong-un can't even be bothered.
It's like, well, I don't even know why I would talk to you.
It's not going to be fun, and it's not going to accomplish anything, so maybe we'll just ghost you and not even return your calls.
Now, remember my main theme for the coming year, that every day that goes by will make Trump look better.
Here's another one. At least Trump could get them to return a call.
Trump basically became friends with Kim Jong-un.
Biden can't even get a return phone call.
So it's starting to look a lot like Trump did some good stuff that Biden can't reproduce.
I'm watching CNN has some kind of a special on Abraham Lincoln, and the theme there is that, was Lincoln a racist?
And I believe the answer is yes.
Yes, he was. He was a big old racist.
Not worse than people during his time.
So, you know, you have to grade on a curve, unfortunately.
So he was probably way ahead of people of his time.
But still pretty darn racist by modern standards.
So watching CNN try to cancel Lincoln is pretty funny.
Which feels to me kind of about politics.
Because the Republicans are the party of Lincoln.
So if they can cancel Lincoln, what a win that would be, right?
Hey, you guys still the party of Lincoln?
We canceled him.
Let me ask you this. Do you think those schools should teach cult awareness classes?
This idea came from J.G. Bennett on Twitter.
Imagine a cult awareness class that comes immediately after your critical race theory class.
So imagine both of those classes.
They teach critical race theory, and then right after it, there's a class on recognizing cults.
Well, I don't think that's going to happen, because it would never get through the teachers' unions and approved.
But I asked the following question.
Suppose there were some kind of a private company that offered the service of deprogramming your child from whatever cult, wokeness, things you think they shouldn't be learning in school.
Would you buy that service?
And I tweeted that, and it turns out a lot of people would.
Now, of course, a lot of people say, hey, I did buy that service.
It's called homeschooling.
So I just do it myself.
And that's one way to go, of course.
But I'm feeling like there will be...
It feels like it's going to happen, right?
Because there are lots of private tutors...
Who augment what kids are learning in school?
That's routine, right?
Why would you not have a special kind of tutor who just comes in every, let's say, once a year and just deprograms your kid so that they're not indoctrinated into too much of a wokeness cult?
Now, somebody says that PragerU does that, and I noted on Twitter in response that the trouble with PragerU Is that other people think they are a cult because they have a Christian background, etc.
So I don't know that the best deprogrammers would be somebody who other people think is also a cult.
Now that's an opinion, of course, because we get to decide what's a cult and what's real.
But you would have more credibility if it was someone not associated with any organization that somebody else says, hey, they're cults, they're just programming you the other way.
And I'm not saying that Prager is doing anything wrong.
I'm just saying in terms of brand, the brand brings a little bit of good and bad baggage with it.
And then I wondered how long would it take to teach it?
And I was thinking, I could do it in one hour.
You'd only need me, you know, if I were part of this company, deprogramming your child, maybe one hour, once a quarter, once a year, something like that.
Wouldn't be a lot. And then I thought, well, why don't I just do a video on it?
Why don't I just do a video?
And people can have a single, single topic video to deprogram your child.
And I'll just teach them the lessons in my book, Loser Think, and maybe a little bit from Winn-Binkley about persuasion.
But Loser Think is about how to identify bullshit, which is what keeps you from being indoctrinated in a cult.
If you can identify what they're doing while they're doing it, you can say, oh, I see what's going on here.
I could teach that in an hour.
I don't think it would take much longer.
Because here are the sort of things you would learn.
I would teach them, do you know, if it's not reported by both the left and the right, it's probably not true.
Did you know that half of the things you think are science turn out not to be true?
Did you know that when they tell you to trust science, that you don't ever see science?
All you ever see is people who have interpreted it for you, so you never even have a chance to trust science.
It's not even an option.
The only thing you have is whether you trust the person who interpreted it for you.
And why would you?
There's no law that says you should trust people.
Sure, you should trust science.
But if the only thing you know about it comes from people, eh, don't trust the people.
So those are the kinds of lessons.
How long would it take to teach somebody just what I just told you?
Well, I did it in less than a minute.
It was like three important points in less than 60 seconds.
Now, of course, you have to repeat things and put a story around things and make them sticky.
But I think about an hour, you could teach kids how to fend for themselves and recognize a cult.
So I'm thinking of doing that, but I don't know if I will.
All right. If you go to Fox News, you'll see a big You know, the top of the page is riots and unrest in L.A., Seattle, Portland to mark the Breonna Taylor raid anniversary.
And then you go to CNN. It's not even a story.
It's the top story on Fox News.
Top story.
And CNN doesn't even cover it.
So how big are these riots and arrests?
It's not big enough to be on CNN, according to CNN. So when you see stuff like this, you have to say, we're definitely living in two different movies.
And harking back to my conversation yesterday about how partisanship actually gives you brain damage, if you were not aware that CNN and Fox News were reporting entirely different worlds today, then you got a little brain damage.
Just a little bit. Because you didn't know that there were two worlds.
You only saw one. Do you know Florida has a big problem coming up?
And it's the problem of success.
Do you ever work for, let's say, in an office, you work for a boss, and you're the efficient one, and you get your work done really fast?
What is your reward for doing your work quickly if you work for a big company?
You already know the answer to this.
Your reward for being really good at getting your work done is you'll be asked to help the people who are slow.
You need to get more work, right?
So success can really take you out.
The more successful you are, the more of a target you are in some cases, and success can kill you.
And Florida's got this problem where they've been relatively successful with the coronavirus.
So where are people going to go for spring break?
To Florida.
So Florida, all of their coronavirus success will maybe be reversed because they were successful.
And that allows them to be opened and allows spring breakers to go there.
I feel as if Florida is going to be an interesting experiment.
And a lot depends on it.
A lot depends on it.
And here's what we hope.
We hope that the spring breakers will, of course, they're going to bring a little bit more infection.
We don't know how much. But we hope it's not so much.
That the hospitals are impacted to the point where they have to do something different and close down or lock down.
I think that Florida will probably stick it out and stay open.
But this will be a real good edge case because if Florida survives spring break and doesn't have to go to some draconian lockdown, I think the pandemic's kind of over.
Kind of over. It's a really good test.
In a way, I'm glad it's happening when it's happening, because it'll tell us a lot, really.
So both Biden and Harris are still quiet on the question of Governor Cuomo and all the allegations from women.
And what a luxury that is.
Imagine under the Trump regime, if...
If he could just ignore one of the biggest stories in the country, just never comment on it.
I don't think that would have worked for him, but it's working for Harris and Biden.
They literally do well when they don't talk about stuff and nobody sees them.
And I'm also noting, do you remember, it might have been Mike Cernovich who was the first one to note this.
It was the first one I saw note it.
Under the Trump administration, time stopped working.
You notice that, right?
That you would say, my God, that happened a year ago, and it was only two weeks ago?
Because your sense of time was all messed up because he did so many things so quickly, one after another.
Time just went back to normal, ironically.
The time got changed today.
But under Biden...
A week feels like a week, doesn't it?
Under Trump, a week felt like it was the beginning of the week last year, so much has happened this week.
But Biden restored our clocks.
Like, a week looks like a week now.
And when I think, what did he do a month ago?
It feels like it was a month ago.
So, Biden made things boring again, just the way people wanted it.
There's a story by Margaret Sullivan.
She's writing about all the online harassment of female journalists.
She says it's real and it's increasingly hard to endure.
And I'm sure that's true.
Probably every time a woman journalist writes something, there's at least one guy who says he wants to chop her up and eat her after a sexual assault.
I mean, there are some bad people in the world.
But here's what I wonder when I read that article.
Has Margaret Sullivan ever seen my email?
Has she ever seen what people say to me?
And I didn't realize this, but apparently my trolls are kind and polite, relatively speaking.
And I was wondering, hey, why are my trolls and my critics also kind and polite?
And then I look down and it's like, oh, I have a penis.
If you have a penis...
Your critics and trolls will not be so bad.
Not so bad. So I kind of use my penis as sort of like a talisman, or like you would use garlic for a vampire.
When the trolls come after me, I just say, oh, hold on, trolls.
Hold on, trolls.
I see where this is going, and let me just show you something.
All right. Everybody, you see that?
Are we good? Can you see that?
Are we good now? And then the trolls go away.
You know, they start out with, we're going to dismember you and cook you and eat you and kill everybody you love.
But then you say, whoa, I don't think you saw this, did you?
And then they go, oh, why didn't you tell us you had one of those?
And then they're like, good job on Dilbert.
And I like your live stream.
So try that at home.
If your critics are giving you a hard time and you're male, just remind them.
Just show them your garlic.
I was pointed to a piece from the CDC where they explain how they calculate or measure the Seasonal regular flu.
And one of the things that I've been asking is, why is it I never hear of anybody dying from the regular seasonal flu?
And it turns out that the CDC, I guess one of their website pages, has maybe an answer to that.
And it goes like this.
See if you've ever heard this before.
It's amazing that we can be a year into this pandemic stuff.
You think you've heard everything that you could hear about viruses and stuff.
And then, I never knew this before, so this is what they say.
Many seasonal flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person's initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-inflection, such as bacterial pneumonia, or because seasonal flu can aggravate an existing chronic illness, such as congestive heart failure or chronic Obstructive pulmonary disease.
Therefore, seasonal flu is frequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications.
It's infrequently listed.
So in other words, you get the flu, and then the flu goes away.
So you don't even have the flu.
But getting the flu exacerbated your other problems, and then you die from the other problems.
And then it's not coded the flu, because at the moment you die, you don't even have the flu.
So, are we counting this right?
Is that the way you would have counted it?
Would you count it as a flu death if the person who dies doesn't have the flu?
Somebody says, just like COVID? No.
Opposite. Opposite of COVID. With COVID, you die because the COVID and the comorbidity are there at the same time.
That's my understanding, right?
I'm not hearing that people are dying two weeks later from an unrelated thing so much.
Maybe. Maybe there's some of that too that I'm just not hearing about.
But I've got a feeling that the way the coronavirus is killing people is that you're having two things at the same time.
The At least part of the story about why we don't count seasonal flu deaths, the regular flu, is because by the time the people die, they don't have any flu.
For one thing. But when they do estimates, they say, yeah, we're going to count those.
Even though we don't count them individually, they're going to say we're going to count them.
Now, when you see this, do you have confidence that we have any idea what's going on with seasonal flu?
And is that a right way to count it?
Would you say that the thing that happened...
Just before somebody died of something else is the cause.
Can we think of any other analogies like that?
Let's say you...
Somebody was saying that, was it the Brady Bill, and when Brady was shot, that he died, you know, decades later, but the cause of death was that he was shot.
Decades earlier, and they had complications eventually.
So would you say his cause of death is the gun?
If he survived for decades, but it really was that injury that took him out in the end, is the cause of death the gun?
I don't know. How do you count that?
If everything had to happen just the way it happened, why is any of it a cause?
It's all the cause.
It's either all the cause or none of it, right?
Because it all had to happen or you wouldn't get that outcome.
Well... And, of course, our military is trying to weed out the white supremacists.
And I ask you this. Should the military also weed out any Antifa and Black Lives Matter supporters?
Would that be just as fair as weeding out the white supremacists?
Let's say a white supremacist who had not broken any laws.
They weren't threatening anybody.
I feel like you have to apply the same standard.
Because if any of those people have not done anything that's illegal, then they either have to all stay there, or you have to get rid of all of them.
What standard are you using to decide who goes?
If you weeded down all racists, who would be left?
Not many people.
Because I feel the healthiest thing that people could take as a way to reframe their reality...
And I've said this a number of times, but I'll just keep saying it until it sinks in.
You don't have the option of not being a racist.
You don't have that option.
Because your brain is a pattern recognition machine.
Nobody would disagree with that.
We see patterns, and then we act on the patterns.
It's the most basic thing your brain does.
But the problem is, we're not good at it.
We operate on patterns...
But we see false patterns as easily as we see real ones.
And then you've got your racism.
So saying that there are people who are not racist is sort of a misunderstanding of how the brain works.
It's a pattern recognition machine.
It's just not good at it.
And therefore you get bias and racism and everything else.
So the better way to look at it is there's some more modern brain theory that says you're not one person.
But that your personality is actually a sort of a contest between parts of your brain.
So there's one part of your brain that wants to eat because it's hungry, but another part wants to get your work done first.
Another part is afraid.
So you've got all these almost like micro-personalities within your head, and all of them are competing.
Some of them, or at least one, is a racist.
Every one of your heads.
There's no exceptions. And that's the part that forms patterns but isn't very good at it.
So it forms bigoted patterns as well.
So... This is whacked.
So I think the healthiest thing we can do is to acknowledge that it's not possible to be non-racist.
It doesn't matter who you are.
It doesn't matter what ethnicity you are.
You don't have that option.
Nobody has that option.
What you do have is the option of creating laws that can minimize it as much as possible.
You do have the option of using your higher reasoning to overcome it when you see it in yourself, to be more alert when it's sort of sneaking out and you didn't know you were doing it.
And then other people say, hey, that was a little bit woke.
Let me give you a little homework.
You ready? Here's some homework.
Go watch some old videos on YouTube of what used to be called the Friars Roasts.
Now the Friars was a group, I think they were mostly celebrity actors and stuff, and comedians, and they would get together on a regular basis, and it was sort of old-timey TV. And they would just pick some famous person and they would roast him.
So it would be all insults about the person.
So I've been binge-watching these old fryer things just for the historical fun of it.
And you would be amazed how many things you couldn't show on TV. That they just did routinely in those days.
You would be amazed.
I would say that one of the dominant joke themes is calling whoever was being roasted, calling them gay.
And I'm thinking to myself, what?
Like, it doesn't even make sense when you watch it anymore.
You're like, why is that an insult?
Like, our modern brain can't even understand why this is in the program at all.
But in those days, they could stand on television and they could diminish somebody in a laughing way by suggesting that they are gay.
And, you know, I think I am pretty compatible with most of the people watching this and saying that the wokeness has gone too far, blah, blah, blah, blah.
As much as I'm empathetic to the fact that the wokeness has gone too far, when you watch these old shows, and you watch them just basically putting down gay people, just as a fucking joke.
Just as a fucking joke.
It's not funny. It's really not funny when you watch it.
And I don't know if I... I don't have a specific memory if I ever laughed at it when I watched it as a kid.
I don't think so, because they don't look like they would have been funny even back then.
But there is definitely...
I think if you reject all of the wokeness, that's going too far.
There is something good...
In the wokeness. And this would be a perfect example.
Do you want to live in a world where there could be just a TV show that everybody's watching, in which somebody is just using the way somebody was born, right?
They're born into the LGBTQ world, and using that as an insult for somebody else.
You don't want to live in that world, do you?
Not at all. So, if you want to get just a better feel for why the wokeness even exists, you know, there are lots of reasons for it, but watching how bad it was when I was a kid will really wake you up, so to speak, wake you up to how bad it was, and maybe you just didn't even realize it at the time, but it was pretty bad.
Pretty darn bad. People use fat as an insult.
Yeah, you know, but fat is one of those, sort of a strange case.
And, you know, I've used the word too, but I don't use it as an insult, per se.
I think you could use it as a description.
And I don't believe there's anybody who is overweight who thinks that's their first choice.
Like, yeah, I want to be overweight.
Somebody says fat is controllable.
It's controllable to an extent, but there's definitely a difference in how much people like food, and that difference comes through.
Yeah, and even Foster Brooks was a famous old comedian in those Friar's Roasts, and his act was he would act like he was drunk.
And he would just do his act like he's drunk.
And I'm thinking, I don't even know if you could do that today.
Because today we see addiction as a medical problem.
It's not funny.
It's not cute. It's just a medical problem.
So I think even that would be different.
Yeah, Dean Martin would act drunk as well.
Alright, so that's all I've got for today.
There's a police video, somebody says.
Some babies are born that way.
Now, when I say that weight is a function of differences among people, what I mean is that some people just enjoy food differently.
I can control my weight relatively easily because yesterday, for example, the whole day I thought to myself, I don't feel like eating.
I just went a whole day without not once feeling like eating.
I mean, I did, because I need to, but I didn't want to.
There wasn't one time I wanted to eat yesterday.
Now, how many people who have a weight problem could say that's even happened to them once?
That you could go a whole day, and not once did you feel like you really wanted to eat, right?
These are different things. I'm not a hero because I can keep my weight under control.
I just don't like food as much.
That's all it is. By the way, I learned that from my hypnosis instructor.
It was one of the best lessons I ever learned.
My hypnosis instructor had a weight problem himself.
And when he talked about how hypnosis is no good for helping people with their weight, he explained it this way.
He said, you can't hypnotize somebody to do something they fundamentally don't want to do.
And if they think the hypnosis is going to make them lose weight, and they haven't decided to lose weight, they just want the hypnosis to do it for them, it'll never work.
The deciding is the active part.
If you decide to lose weight, then you're going to take whatever pain it takes.
Because you've already said, whatever it takes, doesn't matter how much it hurts, I've decided.
I'm just going to do this now.
Then hypnosis would work, but so would every other method.
It's really the deciding that made the difference.
But my hypnosis instructor said this.
He goes, you want to know why I'm fat?
He used the word himself.
He goes, you want to know why I'm fat?
He goes, I like food.
If you complicate it, you don't need to.
That's the whole story. He said, I'm fat because I like food.
If you like food as much as I do, you'd be fat.
Once you understand that...
Somebody says, I'm done.
This guy is boring, and he's lying.
Well, only one of those is true.
I'm not lying about anything.
I'm just boring. But I'm going to solve your problem.
Boom! You'll never have to deal with me again.
I like it when I can solve problems.
Somebody says, I believe the emotion is at the base and not the deciding.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe the emotion slash eating connection, except that some people like to eat more.
All right, that's all for now, and I'll talk to you later tomorrow.
The news is very boring lately.
It's not my fault.
But it'll get better tomorrow.
Your gut biome affects your weight.
Well, here's the thing.
I saw this statement from, let's see, who was it?
The British actor, Michael...
I forget his name.
But he said, why is it that when you see photos of starving people, none of them are fat?
Right? So his point is, if it's not how much you eat, Then why are there no people starving to death while still fat?
Like people who, you know, tragically were in concentration camps and stuff.
So there's no question that eating less reduces your weight.
We have countless examples of people starving to death and none of them died fat.
