Why is there still so much academic gibberish? I was checking a paper that was posted on Twitter where everyone seemed to be so enthusiastic about, so I had a short check on it. Here is the first line:

Post-Cartesian frameworks, including developments within the embodied
and enactive cognitive sciences, complex systems science, and
dialogical approaches to cognition, strongly emphasize the inherently
indeterminable nature of the person and the inextricably entangled
relationship between person, other, and technology.

And it goes on with:

Automation, on the one hand, is something that is achieved once a
given process is complete, that is, it is understood, and discrete
such that it can be implemented from a set beginning to a set finish
reliably. People and social systems, on the other hand, are
partially-open, always becoming, and inherently unfinalizable
(Bakhtin, 1984). Automation as complete understanding, therefore,
stands at odds with human behaviour, which is inherently incomplete,
making machine classification and prediction futile.

Is it me, or is this paper obscurely written? And why didn't anyone seemingly notice it, given that it was both peer-reviewed and published? Why were people so enthusiastic about it, instead of admitting they just didn't have a clue of what it is about (or at least to understand the arguments presented in the paper)?
Why is there still so much academic gibberish?
Related link: http://www.skeptophilia.com/2014/02/academic-gibberish.html
Edit:
My mistake! It might not be peer reviewed. But I'm still wondering if this is very common in academia, or if it is dependent from field to field?
There's one of my papers, much of which is couched in seriously obfuscated language: in places, even worse than the example linked by OP. (I won't say which paper, in case I embarrass my co-authors.)  In my case, I think the reasons were:

More than a decade elapsed between production of the first complete draft of the paper and its submission to the journal where it was eventually published.  During that period, we changed our minds several times about some of the core conclusions; but each time, some bits of explanatory text got left in the paper that were only really apposite in the context of now-obsolete conclusions.
During that period, my co-authors and I were not in very frequent contact, and we ended up using edits to the text of the paper to communicate with each other about the science in the paper; this produced text that was sub-optimal for communicating with readers.
Despite the long total drafting period, the submitted version was finalized in a tearing hurry to meet a deadline for a thematic issue of the journal, so there was no time for a thorough pass through the text for clarity and concision.
Perhaps most significantly of all: the referees let us get away with it.