He's an ass for sure, but his commentary is spot on. Refreshing to hear in this fake-ass world we now all live in.
But I'd take all those from someone with actual substance and talent as Taleb, than the barrage of fake-ass (as you call it) PR content and pleasantries, on this fake-ass world we now all live in.
In fact, I actively dislike the non-flaws (or just "admitted flaws" they're now "overcoming") "wholesome" all-too-decent people and writers, who never want to dirt their hands and have it good with everybody, and mostly produce trite of the TedX variety...
Other times he's spot on. Usually it's not anything actually new, but he deserves some credit for being such a bulldog about it.
He's famous for lambasting psychology, some of which is deserved, but some of which is just ignorant. Earlier this year he started complaining about psychologists ignoring long-tailed/skewed distributions, which is so absurd and widely written about I don't even know where to start, as it's a basic corollary of a lot of modern models. He also selectively miscites literature; god forbid he should do a systematic meta-analysis.
More of my concern is reinventing the wheel. I think he deserves a lot of credit for drawing attention to wrong models and assumptions in economics but model misspecification has been a topic that's been written about for decades in the statistics literature (e.g., "all models are wrong but some are useful", sandwich error estimators, pseudolikelihood ratio, model averaging, the work of Dawes, etc.). I agree with the general point he's making with these types of things, but his discussions would be a lot more interesting if he gave credit where it's due, expanding on others' past work rather than burying it.
Mostly I wish he'd tone himself down a bit, to get his signal:noise ratio in a better place. But then maybe he wouldn't draw attention to some of these issues.