[Glice]

I think you get precisely that problem with anyone who's heavily entrenched in Lacan. Relatedly, there's someone I know who was told by their lecturer to 'grow some balls' when reading Derrida. The points in each are diffuse and complex, and I think it's dangerous to reduce specifically these philosophers to bite-sized forum post-length. Which obviously leaves ample room for detractors to say there's no content.

I don't think it makes Lacan any more or less meaningful than Wittgenstein just because you can summarise Wittgenstein in a paragraph or so. Wittgenstein has one project, whereas Lacan (and post-Lacanians such as Zizek) deal with a more diffuse array of popular culture, psychoanalysis, film theory, leftist politics, the frissions of Maxism and so on. Personally, the fact that Zizek can write just as comfortably on CNN's rendition of 9/11 as he can Althusarrian ethics makes him a fascinating character; and while I'd never say that diversity was the most important capacity of a philosopher, it's certainly something that's largely absent in the 'mainstream' of philosophy.

Edit: Wittgenstein has, obviously, precisely 2 projects. But we all ignore the first one, amirite?