The biggest strawman in this while debate is when people say something like "Protests are meant to be disruptive" as some kind of catch-all dismissal of people's frustrations with having their commute blocked for hours, etc. Yes, protests are often meant to be disruptive so as to draw attention to their cause, but that doesn't mean any and all disruption is an effective tool.
This sort of flippant, meme-like repetition of this strawman from some supporters only further emphasizes the gulf between them and the increasing majority of the Canadian public who are actually finding themselves opposed to the protesters. If you can't generate public support and target your actions in a smart, thoughtful way that doesn't alienate half the population, then you're not doing it right.
And all the people claiming that anyone expressing this opinion 'wouldn't have supported the civil rights marches' etc are only further emphasizing this tone deaf perspective. Yes, civil rights marches in the US were divisive, but they also mainly targeted communities and business that engaged in segregation, they didn't go into random communities and shut down commuter trains to protest something happening three states away because that would have been counter to the entire point of gaining public support.
What the protesters DO want, and what they aren't getting, is images of arrests, so they keep upping the ante in their protest actions to try and force the RCMP's hand, but it's backfiring because they're ignoring most Canadians now are calling for RCMP action. (61% based on a recent ipsos poll)