Addressing the grand challenges requires structural changes that inevitably will shift the distribution of resources among groups. Unsurprisingly, these calls for change in political or advoacy messaging typically encounter opposition from recipients. Past work has attributed this opposition to the limited desirability of the proposed new order (what is said). We defend that the perception of threat increases as a result of how the message is conveyed. Specifically, the emotions displayed by proponents of change will contribute to perceptions of feasibility of change. Displays of love will drive inferences of power of proponents and these inferences will increase the perceived threat. Bridging socio-functionalist theories of interpersonal emotions with folk theories of emotions and power, we articulate why, how and under which conditions love displays will increase the perceived threat. Our argument is that displays of love communicate emoters' care about distant others and willingness to alter existing group hierarchies to protect them. Recipients infer that emoters have courage, determination and persistence to pursue the proposed change. This rationale is consistent with scholarship on moral heroism and folk theories of collaborative power. These implicit schemata underlie the perception that communicators of love have these leadership qualities so that recipients anticipate their gaining access to resources that confer them future power. We also propose that these effects will be observed with intense love expressions. Whereas mild love expressions will drive inferences of warmth, as intensity surpasses a threshold, the recipients' inferences described above will emerge. This is because intense expressions of love towards distant others will be interpreted as a violation of feeling rules; this violation is interpreted by recipients as further proof of the persistence and determination of emoters. Research on linguistic markers of radicalism also provides evidence for this argument.