It's funny to think that most of the books I'm reading came out within a decade of, like, Remain in Light. It's so easy to think that philosophers like Foucault and Deleuze are from centuries ago, because for most philosophers, that's true, and most post-structuralists had a circular interpretation of time anyway, leading to things like Deleuze simultaneously having the books Nietzsche and Philosophy, which is about a philosopher from centuries ago, and Foucault, which is about one of his contemporaries.
This also brings to mind in Obama's book when he says he read Foucault to (unsuccessfully) get some of that post-structuralist they/thussy - what is the fundamental difference between that and, for example, that picture going around of Glenn Howerton with bleached hair that says The Gang Tries to Score They/Them Pussy at a King Gizzard Concert? The only surface-level difference is that I can think of is the perceived subversive nature of the subject matter (in that punk rock is perceived as more punk rock than books), and even that is a tenuous relation given that a lot of philosophy from that era is arguably more punk than most punk rock.
I feel like perhaps the default assumption is that philosophy as a field is for those "calling the shots" to analyze and work into their routines, which is backed up by the ceaseless discourse in analytic circles of utilitarianism (perceived as the "status quo") and its effects on society. Thus, when presented with a philosopher that one has not heard of, one thinks "someone who is predisposed to deal with this information has already done so," because when a philosopher is from 400 years ago, that probably is the case. Most post-structuralists, however, haven't entered the collective conscious nearly as much as philosophers like Aristotle and even psychoanalysts like Freud.
The fact that philosophy is entering the vogue (to an extent) is helping the situation, with Instagram pages and such dedicated to Deleuze and Spinoza, but the continental subculture is still, and will likely always be, defined in part by its separation from the mainstream, which obviously makes it hard to apply to the mainstream.
I'm bad with conclusions, so the moral of this story is to read Deleuze, no matter how much your dumbass collegiate analytic philosopher professor tells you "not to read the primary texts." Seriously, who says that?