Probably a certain amount of specialized terminology is neccesary, and the complete lack of it, as in (say) Nietzsche, doesn't always signify a profound thinker. But I agree with you that most contemporary philosophers use jargon simply to obscure.
I’ll start by addressing your second question first: bias isn’t a binary; it exists on a spectrum. there’s a difference between a tiny bit of bias and extreme bias. So, though previous research and experience, I have come to trust some sources more than others and come to expect certain sources to have more or less bias in one direction or another. that, combined with comparative analysis of multiple sources, one can come closer to factual reporting through one’s own critical analysis of the reporting itself-- however, depending on what’s reported and the sources available, sometimes… one can only be so certain that one is getting the truth.
it can be frustrating trying to find accurate reporting of a story, even from previously trusted sources. I encourage people to read their news from multiple sources whose backgrounds they’ve investigated and to critically analyze the facts presented, and that they apply their own critical analysis to try their best to arrive as close as they can to the facts. Also, to realize that, in the world of corporate media, that being certain that the news you’re consuming is 100% accurate my not be possible.
I had a philosophy professor years ago who said that people who make catalogues of logical fallacies don't really understand logic. The true logician simply examines the argument, notes that it doesn't follow, and tells you why without using any jargon.
Being on the internet has convinced me this guy was completely correct.
As a former self-proclaimed Hoxhaist who spent a certain amount of time in Hoxhaist online spaces, I have to say this sort of behavior is not particularly out of the ordinary.
I don't support the sentiments voiced in these quotes, for which I would like to see more context, but we should also remember that he's allied with the Russian government in fighting genuine swastika-waving genocidal fascists (and the NATO alliance which backs them). Material reality, not opinions alone, are what makes one a fascist.
"Wait, you're telling me I have to go up against people who can fight back? I didn't sign up for this, I signed up to mow down unarmed civilians and post sexy #IDF selfies on twitter!"
The story I'm starting hear is "ecocide," i.e., the Russians are so cartoonishly and moustache-twirlingly evil that they've decided they want to kill Mother Nature. Just because.
I first learned about Zhdanov and Zhdanovschina in the context of Testimony: The Unpublished Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich (a very tendentious and, according to even liberal scholars, very likely fabricated tome). Even within that context Zhdanov seemed based, with all criticisms of him basically reducing to "he didn't let famous artists form a clique where they would just throw paint at the wall and then mock common people for not 'getting it,' this is SO TYRANNICAL!"
Are you using “full-fledged capitalism” in the sense of a deindustrialized, financialized version of capitalism like in the imperial core?
Yes, and furthermore: Russia will be unable to achieve a kind of capitalism capable of creating, on its own, positive growth. The capitalist economy there will always be parasitic on the old Soviet economic structure. Russia is capitalist, but in an atypical way. Its capitalism is the socialist economy in decay.
Probably a certain amount of specialized terminology is neccesary, and the complete lack of it, as in (say) Nietzsche, doesn't always signify a profound thinker. But I agree with you that most contemporary philosophers use jargon simply to obscure.