I can't blame someone for remaining ignorant of macroeconomics. I also don't take you very seriously. The most likely reason why you feel that most economists know nothing about macroeconomics is because you belong to a minority or so-called heterodox faction.
I have formal education in mainstream economics and only became familiar with the Austrian school afterwards. I read non-Austrian sources as well. Empirical research, for example, can be interpreted from several points of view, you don't need to agree with the school of the person doing empirical research and his interpretations of the results.
But I'm also a stubborn skeptic. If someone disagrees with me, I expect him to argue, rather than just bullshit around. If it turns out in the end that I was wrong, it's no big deal. I want to pursue the truth, not writings of someone else. My research of Bitcoin, for example, brought me to a position where I defy both the gold standard branch and the freebanking branch of the Austrian school.
The most important point in economics is to identify assumptions, and that's where many economists fail. They make implicit assumptions without being aware of it, and they end up contradicting themselves. This has nothing to do with belonging to a specific faction.
PS What about econometrics? The third major sub-discipline. Being completely ignorant of this is okay?
There is a difference between being ignorant of something, and agreeing with something. So while I would say that economists should have a basic understanding of econometrics too, it does not mean that will allow them a better grasp of economic phenomena.