I agree with this. Both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ protests are annoying, and deliberately so. If they were not annoying, they would be ineffective.
This thread illustrates the exact difference between them.
Protesting by sitting-in at segregated lunch counters is a ‘good’ protest. Why? Because the victims of the protest (the people being annoyed) are exactly those who are committing the moral offence being protested: the owners and patrons who are engaging in segregation.
Protesting by invading a “brunch” is a ‘bad’ protest. Why? Because the victims of the protest (the people being annoyed) are not those committing the moral offence being protested: police violence. The allegation that they somehow are, because “brunchers” = ‘White, 1 percenters, thus owners of the system that created violent racist cops’, is dubious in the extreme. [We will omit the polite fiction that this is intended to ‘educate’ said brunchers]. Many people who would readily agree that violent racist police are a major problem would nonetheless strongly disagree with the underlying logic of this protest - that ‘brunchers’ are a bunch who are morally offensive, thus deserving of protest.