Everyone votes too. The government lacks empathy towards me by forcing me to have an equal vote with morons and criminals.

There are scenarios in life where we're all in this together and excising people for their inconvenience isn't what's best for society.

You don't just cast off disabled people into the void, for example. Unless you have a solution for where to put these problem public school kids that isn't juvenile detention, I don't want to hear it.

I hear you. It's no good for chronically disruptive kids to be in juvie all the time, but it's also no good for them to remain in classrooms. Any amount of pay won't salve the sheer stress of attempting to teach those who won't learn. It would be great if someone could just snap their fingers and give those kids stable homes or something. Unfortunately, I suspect the solution requires efforts on multiple fronts (ample food, housing, social support, etc.) and will be expensive, difficult, and slow.

The callousness of the HN commentariat towards those who "don't behave according to the rules" is off the charts these days.

We're talking about children here. They don't know how to behave like adults yet. Cutting them out of society where they fail to meet expectations is cruelty.

It seems to me that you recognize one kind of cruelty but not another, forcing innocent bystanders to have their education heavily disrupted.

No, it's just that "disruptive" is a pretty broad and subjective spectrum of behavior and a lot of kids get a raw deal from school administrators for really harmless shit. See zero-tolerance policies. Everyone in this thread is using broad weasel language with a blanket response of "expulsion" when really that should be reserved for heinous offenses.

By "weasel language", you make it seem as if we're intentionally lumping in kids who aren't really problematic and being sneaky about it. We could all stand to be more nuanced, and there may be some people here who are just that harsh, but I think you're reading too much into our intentions. I doubt most of us support zero-tolerance policies (if informed about it). Frankly, I think administrators have to be willfully perverse to actually enforce such policies.

> Frankly, I think administrators have to be willfully perverse to actually enforce such policies.

I think you misunderstand what a zero-tolerance policy is and how it's applied. There literally is no tolerance. There is no nuance to them. If an incident is reported they are required to take action. There isn't a decision-making process past the point of the incident being reported. Everyone involved and any witnesses literally have to keep their mouths shut.

This is sympathy ethics run amok. Being unable to protect yourself or your family from disruptive influences because of some sympathetic property of the disrupter is self-undermining. Presumably you would quarantine a kid who contracted some highly contagious and potentially deadly disease. This is really no different. One can be sympathetic to the plight of an innocent and not be willing to suffer significant hardship for their benefit. There is no contradiction here.