Violent communication is an umbrella term for a variety of causes and effects. It may not be hateful. It may not be abusive. But it has the quality and characteristics of the intent to cause harm, which is what violence is.

But going back to your main assertion here, you say that the word 'violence' has a particular definition, and the use of this phrase does not retain it, and that it thus harms people's interpretation of the word and its meaning. Let's see if that's true.

The American Psychological Association defines it as this:

" Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder. Violence has many causes, including frustration, exposure to 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮, violence in the home or neighborhood and a tendency to 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁. Certain situations also increase the risk of aggression, such as drinking, insults and other provocations and environmental factors like heat and overcrowding."

The Oxford dictionary has this definition:

"violence. Pronunciation: /ˈvī(ə)ləns/. noun. 1) Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. 1.1) 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀. 1.2) Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. To do violence to. Damage or adversely affect. Origin: Middle English: via Old French from Latin violentia, from violent- 'vehement, violent' (see violent)."

Wikipedia has this to say:

"Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, 𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝘀. However, generally, 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 (by a person and against a person)."

Also note that Wikipedia (and many other sources) define the types of violence as self-directed, interpersonal, and collective, spanning acts such as physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, and emotional. (Other sources include expanded or additional categories)

--

You'll note that in many definitions, the term encompasses several iterations on the theme, such as assault and non-physical harm. (As a fellow linguist, i'm sure you're aware that the definitions of the word "assault" in both a legal and non-legal context includes non-physical harm) According to multiple sources, the definition of the word flies in the face of your more strict interpretation.

But you also mention catch-all word-phrases for things like this - like 'violent communication'! You can also notice that since the word 'violent' is in the phrase - and since it is the root word of 'violence' - and since their mutual definitions span the same subjects and imply the same cause and effect - that it isn't a perversion of the original word's meaning at all, but merely elucidates a particular category of thing the root word wouldn't have directly described as well.

Now, let's finally address your love of the word 'rhetorical'. The word 'rhetorical', in a general definition, is to form a question in order to make a point rather than elicit an answer.

Taking into account the rest of my argument & evidence on the original subject, don't you think it might be more useful to use language to point out a flaw in logic, rather than trying to break down someone's argument with ad-hominem attacks?