Your phrasing (twice in the essay and now in that comment) is pretty much indistinguishable from proud declaration of ignorance as social signaling. Invoking straw postmodernists is neither big nor clever.

Contrary to many rationalists' views, postmodernism is not composed entirely of bullshit - it is a useful critical method to keep on hand when talking about mushy social and artistic things, like almost all of what humans do that might be called "culture". Humans are incredibly full of shit, and postmodernism and critical theory can be somewhat useful in cutting through it and calling them on it.

However, as the product of humans, it is itself horribly susceptible to bullshit in turn, particularly when overapplied to actual reality. It's also really, really badly lacking in rigor, and pretty much crashes and burns on Vladimir M's tests. So that's a reason not to bother with it unless you're interested in it for its own sake, as I am. I suspect you need to have worked out a usable amount of it yourself to get use out of it.

Nevertheless, it is about something and useful. I'd say that any effective writer of fiction needs a working knowledge of postmodernist techniques, whether they call it that or not.

Starting point for the curious: it works pretty heavily on Bayes structure - Bayesian epistemology being the way to resolve the dilemma of things that are both subjective and objective: how to say communicable things about things that are a matter of opinion, like art and feelings. Very few postmodernists can count above twenty without using their fingers, so a few people have noticed it in passing but the rigorous work pretty much hasn't been done; but if you know what postmodernism is for and you know how Bayesian epistemology works, the Bayes structure is pretty obvious. (This is my cue to try to infect my postmodernist academic friends with Bayes.)

I find postmodernism useful in my years-long interest in record collecting and popular music. Useful (to the reader) popular music criticism requires understanding the horrendous forces of bullshit involved in its production. If you want to see what postmodernism would look like as the basis for engineering, '80s pop music in the UK would be a good example, culminating in "The Manual" by the KLF: a step by step procedure on how to have a number-one record.

I wouldn't say people should go out of their way to learn it, but I wouldn't mark it something to avoid. My problem is I've spent far too long as a music critic, so the stuff is actually interesting and useful to me. This is, arguably, a fate to avoid.

I need to write up something on the subject. One day.

Edit: I've pointed friends at this comment to rip it to shreds and belabour me about the head with wherever I'm being not even wrong, which I probably am in a few places - I come to it as an autodidact because I found it useful, not as someone who trained up in it properly.