fix criticism tutorial

opsec/criticism/index.html

@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
 				<div class="col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
           <h2><b>Low-Quality Criticism</b></h2> </br> </br>
 <p><b><u>- Level 0:</u></b> At the lowest level (Name-calling)</b> you can call me a dumbo jumbo and meanie, but in the end you're just throwing a tantrum because you don't like me. I think you can avoid polluting whatever public place you have found to do that and grow up a bit, you'll save everyone's time.</p>
-<p><b><u>- Level 1:</u></b> (Ad Hominem)</b> you can also criticize my characteristics and pretend that i am too young to know more than you, Oh, The mighty all knowing, you're doing the same thing as the above but you're also trying to puff up your own ego at the same time. Dishonesty in arguments is sadly way too common, resulting in Sophisticated Ad Hominems</p>
+<p><b><u>- Level 1:</u></b> (Ad Hominem)</b> you can also criticize my characteristics and pretend that i am too young to know more than you, Oh, the mighty all knowing. you're doing the same thing as the above but you're also trying to puff up your own ego at the same time. Dishonesty in arguments is sadly way too common, it's can be subtle and imperceptible for the ones that aren't trained to notice it. </p>
 <pre><code class="nim">
 [...] We still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
 
@@ -119,6 +119,8 @@ Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least o
 
 </pre></code>
 <p><b>If all you can think about is how to win the next argument, then you're not a truth seeker, You're just desperatly trying to protect your ego.</b> I was once like that to be clear, but i grew out of it. Everyone can grow out of it. You just have to be willing to leave your insecurities behind to be able to move forward.</p>
+<img src="7.png" class="imgRz">
+<p>A real truth seeker will not restrain himself to only his perception of the truth, but he'll also seek to percieve the truth from as many different perceptions as possible. <b>There's no such thing as possessing the absolute truth, we're always seeking it, always getting closer to it without ever attaining it.</b> Operational security requires combining different perceptions to be able to achieve privacy, anonymity and deniability. It takes a while to get used to percieving what we're talking about from all the different angles, and ways of percieving the showcased setups. You have the adversarial point of view, the anonymity sets, the public surveillance, the forensic evidence you leave behind, the complexity of the setup, who can pull it off, etc. <b>Stay open minded, like us, because you may have missed something.</b></p>
 
 <p><b><u>- Level 2:</u></b> (Responding to the tone)</b> you can also criticize how arrogantly i wrote what i wrote and how i pretend to know more than you, but still even here you're not even addressing the actual content that i wrote. Again, all you're doing is just noise still.</p>
 
@@ -127,7 +129,7 @@ Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least o
 
 <p><b><u>- Level 3:</u></b> (Contradiction)</b> For example, <b>if you start to say that using closed-source software is suitable for private use without explaining why</b>, like how the moderators at privacy guides are doing, you're not helping either. Just because you're a moderator of a privacy laxism forum <b>doesn't mean that affirming the opposite of what an entire blogpost says without explaining why is going to disprove anything.</b> </p>
 <img src="1.png" class="imgRz">
-<p>This is an example of a very low effort criticism, it simply highlights that one party has a ton of compelling arguments and while the other one doesn't, they don't even care about defending their point. <b>In this particular contradiction, the other party is downplaying the requirements to achieve privacy,</b> implying that being spied on by the government or corporations is acceptable, when in fact it is not. <b>This is also known as a Minimisation Fallacy</b></p>
+<p>This is an example of a very low effort criticism, it simply highlights that one party has a ton of compelling arguments and while the other one doesn't, they don't even care about defending their point. <b>In this particular contradiction, the other party is downplaying the requirements to achieve privacy,</b> implying that being spied on by the government or corporations is acceptable, when in fact it is not. <b>This is also known as a Minimization Fallacy</b>.</p>
 <p>The other extreme of this type of fallacy would be <b> spreading <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt">FUD</a> (Fear Uncertainty Doubt)</b> like in <a href="https://tottnews.com/2024/09/25/tor-web-browser-cracked/">this article</a>:</p>
 <img src="6.png" class="imgRz">
 
@@ -136,7 +138,7 @@ Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least o
 The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
 
 </pre></code>
-<p>Nowadays, where everyone (including journalists or sunday privacy laxists) can have their uneducated say on everything, <b>it is because of idiots that can't shut up that we are swimming in an ocean of bullshit where actual quality is hidden 10,000 kms below the surface.</b> It is an herculean task to untangle everyone's blatant lack of education, but lucky for you we're not lazy blogposters, this blog is here to preserve quality, when we're wrong we admit it, learn from it, adapt and rewrite accordingly to get closer to the truth. <b>We won't give in to FUD, or any minimization fallacy whatsoever</b>, Stay true to your logic and reasoning.</p>
+<p>Nowadays, where everyone (including journalists or sunday privacy laxists) can have their uneducated say on everything, <b>it is because of idiots that can't shut up that we are swimming in an ocean of bullshit where actual quality is buried 10000 feet below the surface.</b> It is an herculean task to untangle everyone's blatant lack of education, but lucky for you we're not lazy blogposters, this blog is here to preserve quality, when we're wrong we admit it, learn from it, adapt and rewrite accordingly to get closer to the truth. <b>We won't give in to FUD, or any minimization fallacy whatsoever</b>, Therefore stay true to your logic and reasoning, base yourself on facts, not opinions or beliefs.</p>
 <p>Don't just contradict what we say, bring reasoning, arguments, logic, data and links to those to the table when you do so because otherwise you're just ignoring the argument completely. <b>Legit Criticism takes more effort like in the examples below, where we will definitely listen:</b></p>
 
 
@@ -163,6 +165,7 @@ The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger t
 <p><b><u>- Level 5:</u></b> (Refutation)</b> You can first quote what i wrote (but i know what i wrote so you can simply link to the tutorial directly and i'll immediately know the context of what you're talking about), and then explain exactly why it's not correct. <b>Ideally if you're basing your criticism on external sources, also post links to those resources that explain further what you're talking about,</b> so that i get the full picture: </p>
 <img src="3.png" class="imgRz">
 <p><b><u>- Level 6:</u></b> (Refuting the central point)</b> If you actually care about me improving my tutorials, cut out all the bullshit you see from level 0 to level 3 and <b>just stick to refuting what i wrote, explicitely.</b> Whether it be the reasoning behind the tutorial, the explanations, the showcased setups, or the purpose of any of the tutorials. <b>However, for every criticism that you make, also let me know how you think the blogpost could be improved.</b> Tell me how you'd improve the tutorial if you think the solution i presented is not good enough (or not simple enough) like in the example above.</p>
+<p>This is the whole premise behind Truth seeking, I strive to have the most correct perception of the subject, but in the end that's my perception. If we combine multiple correct perceptions of the same topic, we are getting that much closer to the truth than we previously were, now that we have a wider, clearer perception of what we're talking about.</p>
 
 <p>And that's it! You now know how to send valid criticism, <b>and you now know how to do it like an adult</b>. By doing so you can effectively contribute to the overall project by helping us continuously improving our blogposts.</p>
 				</div>