> Bad behavior leading to "consequences" for one group should also be considered bad behavior for the other group, which doesn't get to complain about the same

> Bad behavior leading to "consequences" for one group should also be considered bad behavior for the other group, which doesn't get to complain about the same "consequences" as well. And it does. This whole "cancel culture" debate is and always has been just a poor attempt at propaganda. There is no such thing as "cancel culture", just this generational trend of using the word "cancel" interchangeably with "boycott". Boycotts have existed since the dawn of time, but there is no good way of personalizing a rival group as "boycotters", and that is the reason why we have this stupid "cancel culture" term. Now, there are a myriad of reasons why a cop should not be treated like any other individual, first of all being that they are legally and factually protected from facing many of the consequences of the same bad behaviour that would put most other people behind bars. But specifically and putting it into context, isn't having a government sponsored, paramilitary law enforcement group, that is immune to many law precepts by design, dangerous enough already? In a world where cops have all their current privileges and conserve all their rights as individuals, there is no room for first amendment rights. There cannot be.