Edit:
Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.
This distinction could be something that has to be actively learned (like, maybe most people in human history would have instinctively resorted to physical violence over an insult). But if so, actively learning it is a great thing.
I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can understand the dangers of speech without minimizing and dismissing them.
This is an example of how the violence of speech is often minimized and dismissed. Causing hurt feelings is violence, particularly doing so intentionally.
I've used an example in this thread: "physical violence". That shit ain't hard, just stop saying speech can't be violence when it obviously can be.