There is an interesting interpretation of Zizek saying that he is practicing an unusual, if not new, form of rhetoric/reasoning which is aiming exactly at this kind of dissonance. I've seen it in the Philosophize This podcast, but they might have gotten it from elsewhere. It goes like this:

1. Start with a point that the public/target group generally agrees to. Or at least it is clearly understandable. It can even be a fact. Like: there is a huge industry around automatizing sex activities, sex toys could basically have sex with each other.
2. Arrive at a point when an obvious opinion is expect. For example: There is an expectation to hear that sex toys having sex with each other is just absurd and dehumanizing and shows their futile purpose.
3. Put a twist on it, when you come to a logical yet unobvious conclusion. For example: Sex toys can relieve performance pressure, and people can enjoy their love life more (while Zizek's example is absurd, sex toys actually help many couples with that in much more plain ways).

Now it usually shows some kind of absurd. For example, sexual puritanism usually lauds calm love life practices - like a chat over a tea with no sexual pressure - but they might be easier to achieve with the help of obscene technology or practices, which release the performance pressure.

His style at least provokes (some) people to think and question dogmas. But it will make any movement aiming at radical coherence or agreement within a group have a beef with him. And you can find incoherence or incompleteness in any way of thinking (summoning the ghost of Gödel for the ultimate proof). And the attitude towards its own shortcomings tells you something about the movement.