In fact, advocating non-violence actually means advocating one-sided violence.
Non-violence does not mean being anti-violence, it just means refusing defense or retaliation; based on the assumption that fighting back will lead to escalation and more violence than the people are already suffering. This is often a logical assumption, but it has the defect of not actually ending violent repression. Indeed, it often invites violent repression.
Calling the people to oppose a violent regime with tactics of non-violent demonstrations and such things, promotes one-sided violent confrontations. You are creating opportunities for the state to use violence against you. Technically, that is not a non-violent strategy. It causes violence. In my opinion, this is not a logical approach.
It makes more sense to me to adopt a strategy which will not only avoid escalation, but also protect the people from needlessly suffering violence at the hands of the security forces. That means system disruption of the corporate interests which have the power and access to control the regime. This strategy is neither violent, nor does it subject activists to one-sided violent encounters with the police.