If you want to clarify your thinking, you should consider these key questions:

1) Why is violence bad? What is it we're trying to prevent when we seek to prevent violence?

2) Are there instances of speech, which in specific contexts can, cause the same negative outcomes that we try to prevent when we seek to prevent violence?

3) Is it really true that physical violence is inescapable, while abusive speech only causes harm if the listener lets it?

Let go of left/right talking points, shallow pattern-matching, and groupism, and deeply consider these questions.

Well, I'm sure a nuanced argument about the boundaries between concepts can be settled by the first Google result.

I'll take your Google result and throw you this Oxford English Dictionary result, which admits a more nuanced interpretation: https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885

That definition is the same as the one I gave. It talks specifically of "physical" violence, at least as the main definition.

When I was growing up, we always had this phrase: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." It was usually the response to a kid complaining of being verbally teased at school, in the sense that he needed to ignore it - don't bother the teacher / parents about it unless the bullies start using their fists to hurt you.

The left has tried to redefine violence over the years in order to create the idea of "hate speech" which they want punished the same as violence.

I disagree with this idea.