I think there are strong incentives for people to disagree with a protest to characterize it as more radical than it is. Likewise, there are strong incentives f

I think there are strong incentives for people to disagree with a protest to characterize it as more radical than it is. Likewise, there are strong incentives for moderates inside a protest to disavow radicals and forcefully defend the protest's reputation. Finally, there are strong incentives for radicals inside the protest to minimize or lie about their own radicalism. Doesn't the argument go "more speech, not less"? I'm really not troubled by the idea that different groups in society contest the meaning of collective action. 2020's George Floyd protests were widely decried in some circles, praised in others, praised with an asterisk in others still, and that's basically part of how society engages in collective meaning-making, so what's the problem? My guess is that the end consensus on this protest will be more or less exactly what it appears to be: a bunch of hayseed idiots, many of whom have fringe (even if not racist) views, briefly annoyed the fuck out of regular Bytowners in a quixotic and futile effort to achieve a set of unclear but mostly odious goals; a handful of them will end up choking to death in a hospital 6 weeks from now; and Canada isn't going to drop a widely supported rule that also makes no sense to drop (because the U.S. hasn't dropped their side, so unilateral changes won't actually benefit anyone).