There is nothing valid and correct in the saying "words can never harm me". Repeated insults and threats can lead to psychological harm (even if they are never followed up with physical violence) and a concerted effort to misinform someone can cause them to make physically harmful decisions.
This should be particularly obvious in the case of children, and as you mention, the saying is generally used to influence that group in particular (which is ironic, given the harm the saying ends up doing).
The more pertinent debate isn't whether words can harm, but whether censorship is likely to do more harm than the words it would prevent being spoken.
The purpose of the axiom and lesson is for children to learn how to deal with those types of situations.
To give children the tools to deal with harmful words and not break down.
I think that is worthily en devour which I am sure is very controversial in the age of Safe Spaces, and participation trophies where by we weaken not strengthen the emotional foundation of children to be able to handle real world situations. The Coddling of the American Mind is setting Up a generation for failure
> The purpose of the axiom and lesson is for children to learn how to deal with those types of situations.
That is a noble purpose, but I don't think it's a particularly powerful tool to tell a child "Well, at least they only insulted and threatened you, they haven't actually broken any of your bones yet."
I agree that children need better tools for dealing with verbal aggression, and maybe modern societies are relying on simplistic approaches that don't build resilient minds; I just think that teaching kids that they are in the wrong for feeling hurt when they're insulted is letting them down too.
No where in the either the saying nor the lesson that have been taught around it is the position that a child or anyone is "wrong" for the feeling hurt if they are insulted. The purpose is to take those feelings, understand them, deal with them in a healthy way, and not let them return as anger, resentment, or worse. To be "the bigger person" emotionally and to view those that would use verbal insults as social outcast, to be mentally strong enough to walk away and dissociate with people that do not respect you. To no engage or "meet them at their level" by just tossing verbal insults at each other, etc
Also round the concept is a respect for free expression, to teach that someone may say something you dislike or you feel is offensive / harmful and you need to be able deal with that. As a culture in America anyway we used to place free expression, even "harmful expression" above all else, this is something I absolutely agree with. Nations, and culture that attempt to regulated "acceptable speech" with so called "hate speech" law is not something I can ever support or understand.
There is nothing valid and correct in the saying "words can never harm me". Repeated insults and threats can lead to psychological harm (even if they are never followed up with physical violence) and a concerted effort to misinform someone can cause them to make physically harmful decisions.
This should be particularly obvious in the case of children, and as you mention, the saying is generally used to influence that group in particular (which is ironic, given the harm the saying ends up doing).
The more pertinent debate isn't whether words can harm, but whether censorship is likely to do more harm than the words it would prevent being spoken.