188
Paper is the new privacy measure.
(discuss.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
188 points (99.0% liked)
Privacy
8601 readers
165 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There are still WWII veterans alive that fought the Nazis in Germany just to watch it repeat itself in their own fucking country.
Think any of those vets are the same people trying to get these folks deported?
They're all 90+. Do you think someone that old is doing anything besides watching soap operas?
Eh...sit in government, from what I can see? They really seem to enjoy that.
I'm inclined to agree. I lost my grandfathers years ago, but I've gone through this thought exercise a lot since this all kicked off:
Assuming they don't already know: would I shelter a 90+ year old veteran from home-grown horrors that they'll never live to see resolved, or let them shuffle off this mortal coil blissfully ignorant?
Honestly, this is a situation where the truth simply won't do any good. I'd probably just not tell them and keep those soaps and old movies on repeat.
I'm not sure I could tell one if I knew one either.
Watching Fox News?
To have been active at any point in the war, someone would have to be 99. (2026-1945+ 18yrs to be draft age at the end of the war)
Even if there are maga ww2 vets, I doubt many of them are active enough for this.
Well damn, guess that's why the Nazis are back in full-force: the generation that defeated them last time is nearly gone. Now 1/3 this country is welcoming Nazis with open arms.
Even accounting for the many 15 year olds that lied and signed up, they would still be 95-96
There were definitely people under 18 fighting in both world wars.
Sure but even if we drop the age all the way to 13, theyre still 93 years old, and that would be people who only saw combat at the very end.
Yeah I mean not a statistically significant difference, I just think the assumption set should be as broad as possible as a matter of conservative estimation. We're trying to show that the living memory footprint is low, which I thought better served by getting the absolute maximum number that could be alive, and it's still very small.