Are there any magazines worth subscribing to? I don't mean lit mags, just magazines in general...

The Economist is the better of the two, Time has gotten really shitty recently.
>special issue dedicated to celebrity! Etc.

>The New Yorker
>balanced
It's the Fox News of the left.

playboy is no longer publishing nudes.

ijr.com/2015/11/468636-playboy-ceo-explains-their-reasoning-for-no-more-nudes/

the ceo is on to something though. "It served its purpose. When Hefner launched the magazine in 1953 nudity was provocative, and today it’s passe."

might even be more worthwhile now.

But the porn wasn't his main point...Just an added bonus

I like n+1 and Jacobin.

If they wanted to be provocative, they should start publishing pictures of women dressed very modestly, working in the kitchen and looking after her 5+ children.

This.

Or fetishes, I suppose.

>Mormon Living

>Playelder

Yes, I'm fucking aware of that. It's a bonus that doesn't exist, as more than one person has pointed out here.

That's why I suggested pairing it with The Economist you wastrel.

Times Supplement? That's still around?

>Being this plebeian
Non-nude is the superior form for masturbation.

The Economist has gone to shit. Used to subscribe but canceled.

Stop you're giving me boner

>implying I was condoning mental or physical self-abuse in the first place

>that pic
my nightmare

Jacobin?

>mfw
I'd hardly call The Economist conservative enough to serve as a balance for that.

National Geographic

The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones and sometimes Rolling Stones

I'm gonna subscribe to New Criterion next month and then I'll come to tell ye if it was worth it or not.

I enjoy H+, actually. It's a fascinating magazine despite its 'transhuman' pretensions.

Leftie teen stuff.

Subcribe to The New Criterion instead. It's the best Conservative magazine and it actually publishes good stuff. Geoffrey Hill published some of his poems there.

Lapham's

>Mother Jones

Looney-tunes Salon-tier fluff.

Vanity Fair has the best writters on very well researched stories and MOther Jones have an extremely well researched stories, to me those two are God tier.

Whatever you say, my friend, whatever you say.

>MOther Jones have an extremely well researched stories

Whatever you say.

Honest question, what are your critiques to those magazines? and what are the magazines you consider God tier and why?

Judging by their online content, it's bretty gud. I may do that.

Not that guy. If I remember correctly, Mother Jones used to be a hyper-radical conspiracy theory website, the kind that literally talked about 9/11 being an inside job. I just read a couple of their articles, it seems different now. Looks like they're going into more legitimate territory, though still leaning towards the radical left in ideological bias.

Why would anyone want to read conservative rags?

NYRB is solid and relatively cheap.

Both are dull.

This and New Yorker, Atlantic, Harper's.

Gramophone, too, if you're into classical music.

For balance I like to read National Review.

G R A N T A
R
A
N
T
A

N+1, The Baffler, Jacobin

The Spectator; The Times

If you're American get the WSJ, if you're Euro still get the WSJ because Economist went to shit.

Don't know why the London review hasn't been mentioned yet, great stuff.

i torrent the economist every week

Download everything you simple pleb. . .

this.

But you know OP, lit publications oftens times cover a wide range of things (though always serious of course). The New York Review of Books is pretty good.

It's more like they're going for the tease-factor rather than obvious "look inside for nudes" selling point. It's the instagram kind of provocative.

Granta is great, although are a hit and miss in recent years

LRB is fucking fantastic and more than just a lit mag

private eye. le monde diplomatique.

Only correct patrician answer.

>left-wing propaganda
>and right-wing propaganda for "balance"
how about no propaganda whatsoever and keeping your mind unpoisoned

>he's a lefty
>we can't have that!

Everything is propaganda.

If you're not poisoning your mind, you're leaving it to starve.

>Everything is propaganda.

no, not really.

BUT

Nothing is apolititcal.

some things are worse than others. but you can't balance garbage with more garbage

Same thing. Ideology (not the Zizek kind) permeates all news sources to the point of twisting them extremely. Although as says,
some things are definitely worse than others.

try not to predicate your arguments on loaded statements

Autism.

that's an extremely reductive understanding of the nature of ideoligies. True that ideology is a lens through which the world is viewed and, in the political sense, action is rooted but it is not the "same thing" as propaganda. Propaganda can be exercised under the programmatic function of an ideology but is not the ideology itself. Some ideologies more than others have no qualms about progating false information in order to achieve it's goals.

This is where you have to let go of the autism and understand that language is (thankfully) not exact.

Did you read my post?

Funny that you'd imagine "lel ur autism" applies to pepple pointing out use of loaded language

Autism.

Yeah I have and you've been disingenous.

Sure, language isn't prescriptive it's descriptive but there is a level at which you can no longer extrapolate a totally different meaning from words (in context). This is especially true in this case when you yourself have hypocritically made a distinction between zizek's use of ideology and the general political science usage of ideology

I was talking about the use of the word "propaganda".

Your defense of your use of propaganda conveniently ignores that it has a rather specific meaning, moreso because we're both speaking about it in its political context, and somehow (to you) that meaning has, which you have actually stated, is exactly the "same thing" as "ideology".

Your offence of my use of propaganda conveniently ignores my argument.

I have been carefully addressing your posts:

>you: propaganda = same thing as ideolog y
me: no it isn't but can be a component of an ideology (as a function) but not the ideology itself
>you: language is not exact
me: of course it isnt which is why context frames it and why I've also addressed the context within it is used
>you: wut? I was talking about "propaganda"
me: yes I know, my answers implied towards that

Tell me, what exactly are your arguments?

>Your offence of my use of propaganda conveniently ignores my argument.

Tell me, what exactly are your arguments?

Because conservatism is the new counterculture in the art world.

The Baffler talks a lot of shit about how different they are to just be The Atlantic 2.0.

You're so pseud it hurts.

Yes, it hurts because a pseud like me has been able point out your fuck ups. embarassing.

Fix everything pseud about you two by reading INFINITE JEST.

not enough time, I'll have to wait for my holiday period to do any heavy reading

I remember buying a few issues of The Paris Review from a newsstand. It was ok, but the poetry and stories were a bit wishy-washy. Their interviews are bretty gud. Their editor translated the American edition of Houellebecq's most recent novel.

The Economist is liberal though.

I've been subscribed to them for a minute now and it has been excellent so far. I pair with First Things, and those two are some of the better conservative magazines if anyone's interested (though FT is Christian, and I know this board is pretty atheist).

have you read any LRB? if so, how do they compare?

What's wrong with The Economist? I still read it sometimes and it seems good.

I haven't read any lit mags prolifically, to be h.onest, but just taking a look at their website, it seems as if LRB is more prolific while The Paris Review goes for more of a cozy feel. It's light reading.

Personally I wish there were more underground newspapers as there were during the 60's and 70's. These lit mags are too upper middle class.

Good numbers, comfy post