What a complete shitstorm. My less than five cents:
TBM asks a brave and difficult question, but in my (admittedly close to worthless opinion), it's based on the false assumption that language has no context in relation to the Mcguire shitstorm from a few weeks back. Regardless of how much an idiot McGuire and his cronies are, there is no reason to believe that they actually were threatening violence or having anything to do with violence by using certain words. Language is only important in the context in which it is used. People say things that are ridiculous if not considered to a certain context all the time. If you bring a different context to it, not only does it completely remove the concept of intent, but it leads to these stupid storms is teacups. For example:
1) Common statement with clear context: "It was a car crash of an interview". Idiot's opinion who ignores intent and context: "That is offensive to car crash victims"
2) Common statement with clear context: "He wouldn't shut up in that meeting, I wanted to kill him." - Idiot's opinion who ignores intent and context: "I'm reporting your murderous intent to HR"
3) Common statement with clear context: "That movie was so bad I wanted to kill myself". - Idiot's opinion who ignores intent and context: "How dare you, my cousin committed suicide"
We say things all the time that are only relevant to the context of the conversation, and most importantly the intent of the speaker. It is the listener's responsibility to interpret the intent of the speaker and interpret their intended meaning with reference to it. Failing to do so makes conversation impossible, and I think it's actually supreme arrogance to impose the listener's own context on the speech of others.
Price is an overpaid git, but I sympathise to some extent with him in this situation. Just because the questioner asks an emotional and extremely personal question, doesn't mean you have to accept their premise. The Q&A audience (TV and social media) is a couple of pitchforks away from an angry mob most of the time and judges most things based on emotive response. Should he have said anything? Probably not, he should have just shut up or made some meaningless comments that might have got some smatterings of applause and head nodding. But that doesn't mean he was wrong. As a side note, I don't think I've ever heard the Q&A audience clap at anything that was worthwhile. They just celebrate meaningless heartfelt speeches or shit cheapshots. It is honestly a show for dumb people that think they're smart. Truly the Big Bang theory of the ABC.
And the hysterical comment? Van Badham decided that he was denigrating her for being a woman, rather than just thinking she was wrong. Jesus, the popular opinion in this country is completely inane. You've got Australia's self appointed grand arbitrator of decency and morality Waleed Aly telling Steve Price last night that actually what he says is offensive because of the etymology of the word "hysteria" and its association with the womb. For fuck's sake Waleed, WHAT ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE SPEAKER. The word fuck has something to do with fornicating without the permission of the King. How many people actually intend that particular meaning when they say fuck? Ironically, let me refer to the definition of etymology: the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
I fucking hate the media and social media's response to the weekly bullshit story about people being offended. I DO think they are being HYSTERICAL, fucking eat me.