According to CNVC, they're using the Gandhi-style definition of violence, which includes "passive violence" (https://www.unh.edu/unhtoday/2016/03/passive-violence). I assume you're doing the same, but if so, I'm not quite sure why you don't motivate it as such? Gandhi is pretty good company.

I'm still trying to figure out why you prefer to frame things in terms of violence (and not "microviolence" either). The two leading hypotheses I have are (1) you think people don't take verbal hostility seriously enough and think that by using more strident language you can get people to take it more seriously (rather than taking physical hostility less seriously), or (2) you think that people should embrace a more tranquil and compassionate approach and they'll understand what you mean if you use the word "violence" in the sense that Gandhi did.

If you mean the latter, you could be more plain. I don't think most people have Gandhi's principles of nonviolence at the top of their minds when they see the word. And the justification doesn't seem to match.

For instance, your quote from M. J. Adia about microaggressions, without context, just makes Adia seem unimaginative and/or to have led a blissfully sheltered life. People can do all sorts of incredibly horrible things to each other, so how could one not have plenty of space in which to place macroaggressions, if you wanted to define such a term?

A couple months ago I might not have thought this was worth fussing about. However, in light of the actual widespread lethal violence being inflicted upon Ukrainians, I'm no longer convinced of the wisdom of casually accepting language that suggests equating the leveling of Mariupol with someone suggesting to "agree to disagree" on a difficult topic where they may bear some responsibility.

If you can robustly make the link to Gandhi and similar efforts, though, the dangers of making the parallel are diminished, as we have an appropriate context in which to understand the words.