Words do not live in dictionaries.
They live in societies—shaped by history, experience, and the moment in which they are spoken.
In Australia today, certain phrases have become deeply contested.
For some, they express solidarity with people enduring immense suffering—an appeal to conscience.
For others, they carry echoes of threat, conflict, and harm.
The tension is not only in the words themselves,
but in who defines what they mean.
Language travels. It shifts across borders and generations.
What is spoken with one intention may be heard through another lens—one shaped by memory, fear, or lived experience.
In this space, meaning is often projected rather than understood.
When that happens, people can find themselves judged not for what they intended,
but for what others believe their words must represent.
This is where conversation begins to break down.
A healthy society needs to draw a more careful line—
to distinguish between solidarity and hostility,
between political expression and harm.
Not perfectly. But thoughtfully.
Because if we reduce language to its most extreme interpretation,
we narrow the space for speaking, listening, and understanding.
And that space matters.
Perhaps the question is not whether words can offend—they often will.
But how we choose to understand them.