I think it dependes to what extent nonviolence is useful. Self-defense is the only form of acceptable "violence" for me (as last resort when nonviolent action couldn't sort out)
Discussion
Pacifists by definition do not believe in self defense under any circumstance. That's immoral in its own right. I cant get behind any ideals that allow sitting by while an innocent is harmed and a person does nothing because of a twisted sense of morality.
Some pacifists accept self-defense as legite
"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."
"Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right."
(Mahatma Gandhi)
I see no differece between the NAP and this. I would never consider a person saying these words a pacifist.
Let me say this, I wouldnt never even remotely consider someone willing to fight back as a pacifist. That changes the defintion. The same word cannot logically include someone who is opposed to violence no matter what and someone who would use it in defense only. That is two drastically different ideals that one word cannot describe both rationally.
Maybe because you're considering the absolute pacifism the only approach about the term, but there are more pacifist's variants.
Absolute vs. Contingent Pacifism
Yea I absolutely do not consider other flavors as I dont consider them pacifism. I know these terms exist. I just dont agree they are pacifism though. They water down the meaning of the word
Let me rephrase what I am trying to say. When the word pacifist is used alone, that has imo a very specific meaning. If used with a clarifying adjective, then that's whatever that one means. Get what Im saying? Its a personal thing with me, I find all the subsets of subsets of larger ideals irritating. I rarely will even talk about the specific flavors of anarchy much anymore. They all have their merits, but to me, so long as its grounded in natural law, its all anarchy to me.