I think the problem is people don't understand the third path. Nonviolent means are not physically violent towards people - it works because of violence all the same though

Protests themselves are just a show of solidarity. They will never change anything - unless they are large or sustained enough that the implied threat of violence causes fear in the leadership. They are just a symptom of discontent, police and the military can disperse the people, and they will, without the implied threat of what happens when you close this outlet

Then there's economic violence. You can shut down a city or grind the economy to a halt with enough motivated people. That will piss people off... At first. If you keep it going, it will transform from an inconvenience to a threat to normalcy - at first, most people will be annoyed at the protesters, but once they feel their life disruptered they will be more angry at the state and just want it to stop

You can do the same legally. You can gum up the works, get yourself arrested for a specific reason to challenge that reason in court, over and over until you freeze up the legal system. You can even win, and push back the boundaries of the law oppressing you

Then there's martyrdom. You can force the state to commit violence on you. You can set yourself on fire. You can give up your life to amplify your message. This makes people very uncomfortable

There's always violence. It can be implied, it can be against yourself, it can be against property, it can be against the feeling of normalcy itself - but there's always some kind of violence. Because ultimately, violence is asserting your will over others, and that's what a movement does