Indeed. I'm also fairly sure that calling it non-violent communication was no quick decision and was at least partly chosen to make us consider whether our usual methods are in fact violent and thus harmful.

I agree with this but I still think it is a bad name. Maybe something like non-aggressive communication would fare better?

Violence is always physical, by definition. Sometimes the word is also used for poetic effect though.

May I refer you to the second definition of violence, per Merriam Webster?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Violence, by definition, is not always physical.

The same dictionary that defines literally as both literal and not literal. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, and so they also account for incorrect but common usage.

If enough people use literally in that manner than it is indeed correct. This is how language works, regardless if you like the change or not. Languages are always evolving and dictionaries reflect that.

In the same vein, language is constantly in flux, so defining a thing as "just so" is at best a temporary accuracy.