It shows the truth - that the real meaning of a word is only as powerful or harmless as the emotion behind it.

The line argues that words do not carry a fixed moral force on their own; their impact depends on the speaker’s intent and the emotional charge motivating them. In this view, language functions less like a neutral dictionary definition and more like a social act: the same term can wound, intimidate, or dehumanize when backed by contempt, while becoming comparatively “harmless” when used without malice (for example, in quotation, satire, or reclamation). The quote also implies a test for evaluating speech controversies—look past the syllables to the animating feeling and power dynamic behind them—while acknowledging that emotion can amplify meaning beyond literal semantics.