Conversely, we often pad our arguments with citations to things we haven’t read well or at all. Not only because that’s what's expected but also because doing so allows us to cover our arguments with a supposed mastery of a literature that is virtually impossible for any one person to master. Whoever says that he or she hasn’t done as much either is lying or hasn’t published.Well, no. I would never cite something I haven't read. If I haven't read it "well" then I will cite it for a peripheral point, not for something central to my argument, as Zizek did. This is an extremely weaselly article and I recommend that you read it and kick some ass in the comment thread. Someone is wrong on the internet!
I do, in fact, master my field. That's the point of being a scholar. I would suggest that this person, so much in awe of Zizek, does not even know enough to know whether Zizek is full of shit or not. After all, if you don't master the same body of philosophy and theology and psychoanalysis that (you assume) Zizek masters, then how do you know he does? He could be totally full of shit and you wouldn't have any clue, right? I guess the argument that all scholars are incompetent is convenient if you yourself don't really know enough not to fake it yourself.