The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Every time you think the virtue-signaling “woke” have reached the extremes of absurdity, these clowns hit themselves in the face with yet another pie. In this episode, no-holds-barred podcaster Joe Rogan unloads on “fat professors” who defend unhealthy lifestyles — by attacking healthy eating habits.

On Saturday’s  “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, Rogan’s guest was fitness influencer Derek of the “More Plates, More Dates” YouTube channel, as reported by Fox News.

The duo referenced a document from the University of British Columbia, titled “You Don’t Have to Know the Calories to Be Healthy,” which promotes the removal of nutritional information from menus because it suggests that including the number of calories next to a food item can be “triggering” for some students.

I might be wrong (I’m not), but if you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. And if you eat fewer calories and burn more calories through physical activity, you lose weight. Period.

Nonetheless, Professor Negar Karami wrote:

Picture this: you walk into a new restaurant, excited to try their renowned pasta dish. You scan the menu only to find the calories listed next to each dish. Now, what was supposed to be an exciting experience has become a stressful one where you second-guess your decisions. Even though you really want the pasta, you order a salad because it’s the “healthier” choice.

If you have ever felt conflicted and overwhelmed when presented with nutrition information like calories, know that you are not alone in this feeling! Keep reading to find out 4 reasons why this can actually be harmful when it comes to healthy eating.

Before we get to Karami’s “4 reasons why this can actually be harmful when it comes to healthy eating,” here’s a preview of Rogan’s thoughts about the professor’s admonishment:

F*** off fat professors, f*** off — you guys are unhealthy; it’s not in any way good.

Any questions or clarification needed?

So let’s dig into the “fat” professor’s “4 Reasons Why Calories Can Be Harmful.”

It diverts your attention away from eating what pleases you. Eating is supposed to bring us comfort and joy, along with nutrients and energy. We have taste buds for a reason! However, when the focus is taken away from the enjoyment of food and placed fully on the amount of calories you are consuming, it can become an overwhelming and daunting feeling.

I don’t mean to nitpick, here, professor, but who said anything focusing only on calories and ignoring other nutritional aspects, and taste? The facts remain: Let’s check in with the Mayo Clinic, shall we?

In general, if you cut about 500 calories a day from your usual diet, you may lose about ½ to 1 pound a week. But this can vary depending on your body, how much weight you want to lose, your gender and activity level.

It sounds simple. But it’s more difficult because when you lose weight, you usually lose a mix of fat, lean tissue and water. Also, because of changes that occur in the body as a cause of weight loss, you may need to decrease calories more to keep losing weight.

Cutting calories needs to include change, but it doesn’t have to be hard. These changes can have a big impact on the number of calories you take in:

• Skipping high-calorie, low-nutrition items
• Swapping high-calorie foods for lower-calorie choices
• Cutting portion sizes

Next reason, “intuitive eating.” Yeah.

It prevents intuitive eating. For those new to intuitive eating, it is described by its creators as a “self-care eating framework” to help repair your relationship with food and feel more in tune with your body. Counting calories can have the opposite effect as it allows external factors to influence your decisions around food more than your internal cues.

Hmm. Coupla things. One, I know plenty of people who not only monitor their daily caloric intake but also eat healthy, tasty food when they’re hungry. Two words, professor: intelligent discipline. You know, like disciplined athletes. Get a grip, dude. But dude has no grip; here’s his third reason to avoid calorie counting:

It gives a false impression that certain foods are “unhealthy” because of the number of calories. Calories can be misleading. […] Society has led us to believe that higher calories equate with “unhealthy” food.

But let’s first define what calories even mean: calories refer to the amount of energy that a particular food provides your body. We all need energy, so why are calories vilified?

While your health status is influenced by food and exercise, it is also connected to your mental and emotional well-being surrounding food. So let’s focus less on the calories, and more on the eating experience.

Yep, people who battle weight problems, don’t worry about those pesky calories — just enjoy your “eating experience.” Anyway, here’s Karami’s fourth reason:

It can be triggering for those with disordered eating habits or eating disorders. For those of us who have a rocky relationship with food, either in the past or present, it can be triggering when we are presented with caloric information and it can affect our ability to repair our relationship with food. By stepping away from nutrition information, we can place a greater focus on the enjoyment of food and creating a satisfying experience.

Derek explained how the university “removed all of the nutritional information apparently from the foods the students were getting on their meal plans because it was ‘too triggering’ to show the calories.”

It presents this f***ed up scenario where you can’t even self-regulate, even the individuals who want to stay at a healthy weight; you can’t even figure out what the f*** you’re eating.

Precisely.

Rogan jumped in, recalling a viral video in which a female professor was “talking about [how] avoiding certain foods is just ‘fatphobic’ and ‘it’s not based in science.’” He remembered the woman saying:

You shouldn’t deny yourself donuts [and that] to call some food ‘junk food’ is incorrect.

Wait— is it “incorrect” because it’s disrespectful to junk food or those who wolf it down? (Michael Moore was unavailable for comment.)

The bottom-line host continued:

They’re raising the most non-resilient people possibly known to man, where every single micro-aggression, every single thing that can trigger you, all those are removed, and you are just raw and vulnerable.

We’ll protect you in this university system, and then spit you out into the world where you will then infect corporations with this ideology—and that is what we’re experiencing.

As well as the public school system — and everything else in society that the “woke” among us touch.

Meanwhile, I think I’ll head out to my favorite sports pub and grab a half-pound cheeseburger with bacon, and a plateful of fries. Then again, maybe I’ll have the Southwestern (broiled)chicken salad, with low-cal dressing on the side.

The Bottom Line

It’s sometimes hard to connect the insane dots of the left with their overall radical objectives. Say, for example, the Democrat Party “of women” fervently supporting males kicking the hell out of females in women’s sports, or “the party of children” dying on the hill of support for on-demand abortion until birth. 

That said, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that by destroying mores and morality, religious beliefs, decency, and the discipline to hold onto accepted values, the left believes the “proletariat” will become unquestioningly malleable to control by a totalitarian government.

Sound impossible? Four words: George Orwell and Saul Alinsky.