This sort of highlights how the dividing mechanism works. You pick a group of people known for some fairly reasonable (asking to end mandates that have little effect given the ~90% vaccination rate anyway) and other unreasonable (blocking highways) actions, and you switch focus from the exact actions to affiliation and support.

Then you can convince the public to turn against your political enemies by framing their support for the cause as support for the unreasonable actions, ignoring any good faith intent they might have had. You double down on this by finding some fringe groups (e.g. actual neo-nazis) sharing the same identity (e.g. being white) and linking them to the person you are trying to destroy, and the public eats it up, completely ignoring the matter of the discourse.

The only way we can stop it is start distinguishing between affiliation and concrete actions. "Blocking traffic is bad" or "vaccines should be available, but not enforced if the hospitals are not overflowing" are much less divisive statements than "freedom convoy and all their supporters are bad".

Edit: funny how this comment's karma keeps swinging up and down. I guess, this take itself is somehow divisive these days. I truly wonder what stance could be accepted a fair compromise by both sides...