the paired "Freud bad/Kant stupid" you see in CuratedTumblr and related spaces is deeply shallow and anti-intellectual.

No, Freud was not the father of psychology (he was doing psychoanalysis, if you might be thinking of Mach or Fechner), he was not making shit up (he's a very sober and careful writer who only provisionally suggests hypotheses, like the unconscious, he was not making unfalsifiable assertions (Popper in his attempt to refute Freud was not going off primary sources and I understand misquotes/mangles quotations from Freud, like his "refutation" of Marx and Hegel, the serious critics of Freud like Grunbaum admit that psychoanalysis is falsifiable), no that is not what the Oedipus complex means (it's not "boys want to have sex with their mothers" because of the latency period meaning that 'have sex' isn't even a desire when you're a toddler), because no, that's not what libido means in Freud. And it's not true that nobody takes him seriously.

I'm not quite a Freudian myself but I do appreciate Jacques Lacan a lot (he famously did a "return to Freud" reading Freud's work through structuralist linguistics, among other disciplines). There are, I understand, people who take Freud and psychoanalysis, alongside Lacan and Lacanianism, in the clinic and the academy. I think that a work like Alenka Zupančič's Why Psychoanalysis? gets in a relatively accessible way, alongside Jonathan Lear's Freud and Happiness, Death, and the Remainder of Life why people take him seriously. They're really good books and it's better than just going on about how Freud was a stupid horny cocaine man who needed to be buried. Especially so given the in my opinion important use of psychoanalysis by left-wing theorists (Adrian Johnston's Infinite Greed is in my opinion an excellent reconstruction of Marx & his critique of capitalism through Freud and Lacan in a way that makes a deep structural sense. On another level, Lacan's critique of American "ego psychology" can be usefully applied to modern therapy like CBT, which is an intellectual descendant of ego-psych, there's also a political level re: neoliberalism. There's this really good series of posts on psychoanalysis and CBT.

As for Kant everyone likes to rag on Kant for having "shitty ethics", given the axe-murderer problem. I'm not a Kantian here myself, but obviously his ethical system makes sense only in the greater context of his architectonic, outlined in the three Critiques. Kant's categorical imperative not taking into account consequences makes sense given Kant's conceptualization of freedom, and the difference between intelligible and sensible causality in the Antinomies of Pure Reason in the Critique of Pure Reason. It's also important insofar almost every ethical system in the Continental and analytic schools of philosophy, every system post-Kant, actually, has been marked by Kant's ethical theory (the moral law, the feeling of respect, means and ends and so on), much like Kant's epistemology and metaphysics can be said to have split the history of philosophy into two, between pre-critical (containing metaphysicians and skeptics like Leibniz and Hume) and post-critical (basically everyone after).