The Agonies of the Left Are Not To Be Laughed At

Ten – Winner
Thanks! I believe the law says David now has to buy me a chicken dinner.
David – Owen Joneses mum doesn’t let him call her “mum”? That explains a lot.
Dicentra – I briefly let my wife out of her heterocage to read the women’s magazine written by men suggestions. She loved it, especially the female retorts.
I’m not sure which one she liked best though, as I wasn’t listening. I could see squirrels in our back garden, and they were merry.

wow. Just wow.
I know.
Depression itself can be quite serious, and I have every sympathy for those who sufferers and their families.
However, whether or not this was the artist’s intention (I suspect not in fact), there is a tacit idea in that one-page comic which seems to suggest that non-sufferers should police their own use of hyperbole in everyday conversation just in case they are overheard by someone who is a sufferer.
It seems to me rather divisive – in other comics in the series, virtually all non-sufferers are presented as simple-minded, shallow and insensitive.
It also seems to be not a million miles from the general strategy employed in identity politics everywhere:
You do not have the right to talk about topic X because you do not belong to group Y;
any comment made about topic X is always invalid unless made by a member of group Y;
as all members of group Y have sole ownership over topic X, all members are beyond reproach or criticism for any comments they make on it, however ludicrous

‘Better’ implies an objective standard by which things can be measured in comparison to one another, and the very concepts of standards and, indeed, of objectivity, were invented by the patriarchy as a tool of oppression.

… the very concepts of standards and, indeed, of objectivity, were invented by the patriarchy as a tool of oppression.*
Merely believing and then stating a thing to be true, as you do above, does not make it true regardless of how many times it is repeated.
Granted, there is a school of thought that is committed to using the constant repetition of certain ideas, such as that we live under patriarchal capitalist oppression, in the belief that if only it can be repeated often enough, widely enough and vehemently enough, it will come true. That strategy, which is incidentally barely indistinguishable from bullying and intimidation, is certainly neither objective nor measurable.
While it is true that the criteria by which things are measured can be developed and refined over time (and may include wrong turns, set-backs and errors), it would be a mistake to conclude from this that all measurement is necessarily arbitrary and, therefore, invalid.
If your blood pressure is 120 over 80 you should be healthy; if it’s 240 over 120 you are very likely to be meeting your maker very soon unless you can find a tool of patriarchal oppression expert medical help, and quick.
Going further back in time, had it not been possible for early societies to develop technologies for measuring the movements of the stars and predicting changes in season, I would ultimately not now be in a position to write to you using the Internet.
*At first I thought your comment was a joke and had been generated using The Postmodernism generator. It then occurred to me you may actually mean what you are saying, hence the reply above.

I think it’s sarcasm
So did I at first … but I actually really can’t tell.