The issue with pseudo revolutions is twofold: Firstly, they frequently use the same methods to attempt to resolve the problem as caused, or at least contributed to, the problem in the first place - violence, blame, aggressive attack, and the creation of a common enemy, or scapegoat - a political, racial, gender, or social group that is to be held responsible for all ills experienced by those engaged in the pseudo revolution - and, secondly, they come to dominate the landscape of change, to the exclusion of more reasonable change makers, and more enduring channels of progress: people who are not inclined towards violence or civil disobedience, who know how it feels to be scapegoated, and thus refuse to place others, however seemingly at fault, in that category, are put off getting involved in working for change, because the only avenue of change making that is given any attention is the pointless, flawed, and barrier-raising pseudo revolutions.
Without people who have a calm, even-tempered approach, no real change can ever be made - the energy of those drawn to "revolutions" is, by its nature, a quick-burning energy, that rarely, if ever, survives in the inevitable tedium of working out "if not this, then what?" And, thanks to knee-jerk policies frequently brought in to control and limit pseudo revolutions, it is often the case that more reasonable action ends up being prohibited.
They are only hindering us if the pseudo revolutions are somewhat related to the larger problem at hand.
Example: Black Lives Matter: silly little movement stops us from acting and trying to make changes. Instead , in this case people are just complaining about unfairness.
Stuff like the person being thrown off the airplane: seriously who gives a fuck