Have a look at what constitutes bullying [0]
Violence is but a subset of it.
Unless we were to water down the definition of violence to include any manner of ridicule. At which, you're diluting the definition of violence under the guise of staying steadfast on the definition of bullying necessarily including violence.
[0] http://www2.gov.bc.ca/myhr/article.page?ContentID=44eaf3f0-f...
That is incorrect. Dictionary definition: "Persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person."
So if I followed you around HN for the rest of the week responding to all postings/comments with insults and browbeating, that would be completely non-violent but still bullying.
Or is it just if I'm oblivious to the harassment I cause & don't care to find out, then it's somehow morally superior to someone repeatedly and strenuously asking me to stop?
I'll just assume you meant "bullying" instead of "harassment" since that was the immediate topic.
From my brief research it seems Matt Taylor wore the shirt because he liked it, not with an intention to harass women, so it fails the intent clause of the definition. And it appears he only wore it once, so it would also fail the persistence clause. Thus it wouldn't be bullying by that definition.
I suspect that wearing that shirt would qualify as harassment under some definitions, such as US workplace law. And I personally think it's in terrible taste in most contexts.
Especially given cases where it can be more damaging to a person than physical assaults against their meat.
Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.