I read gp as referring to the writing style / presentation of philosophical arguments. Continental certainly doesn't optimize for clarity or precision. This is

I read gp as referring to the writing style / presentation of philosophical arguments. Continental certainly doesn't optimize for clarity or precision. This is evident in how often the works are misread and misinterpreted. To your point, it requires understanding a colossal tradition of other works (and attendant history) to really get much (of the real message) out of continental philosophy. Conversely (per gp), analytic tries too hard to be clear and precise, at the expense of possibly missing some difficult to express subtleties (or, perhaps continentals might say, missing the point entirely). But it's no surprise that continental is always gonna get trashed when people who aren't pre-committed to the canon want to discuss philosophical topics. And I agree with the takes that say (as I understand gp to be implying) that philosophy needs other styles to be accessible and to effectively cross-pollinate with other disciplines.