Are there any magazines worth subscribing to? I don't mean

TLS

>>8415607
I've actually been thinking about subscribing. Is it a bunch of liberal propaganda (can't believe I'm actually using that phrase) like the New Yorker has become? I actually identify as a moderate/liberal, and I feel like the New Yorker sells out on ideas far too often.

>>8415606
Where can a man acquire this armor made of live monkeys?
asking for a friend.

>>8415606
>playboy
>fap material
>getting on the internet, where you practically have to wear galoshes to wade through all the free porn
>to talk about paying money for fap material
>from a magazine that doesn't do nude photos anymore
>>>/sp/ Lochte pls

>>8415641
Nippon.
>>8415607
Are they strictly literary?

>>8415665
Good reading comprehension.

>>8415606
What is /lit/'s opinion on TIME and The Economist? I've been thinking about subscribing to one of the two to keep me informed and shit. Any other options perhaps?

>>8415673

Thanks; sadly I cannot reciprocate

>>8415702

The Economist and The New Yorker would be a more balanced palette famalamadingdonkey. The latter has some grat investigative journalism from time to time.

>>8415702
The Economist is the better of the two, Time has gotten really shitty recently.
>special issue dedicated to celebrity! Etc.

>>8415726
>The New Yorker
>balanced
It's the Fox News of the left.

>>8415606
playboy is no longer publishing nudes.

http://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.

>>8415665
But the porn wasn't his main point...Just an added bonus

>>8415606
I like n+1 and Jacobin.

>>8415737
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.

>>8415750
This.

Or fetishes, I suppose.

>>8415750
>Mormon Living

>>8415792
>Playelder

>>8415738
Yes, I'm fucking aware of that. It's a bonus that doesn't exist, as more than one person has pointed out here.

>>8415734

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

>>8415607
Times Supplement? That's still around?

>>8415665
>Being this plebeian
Non-nude is the superior form for masturbation.

>>8415702
The Economist has gone to shit. Used to subscribe but canceled.

>>8415750
Stop you're giving me boner

>>8416031
>implying I was condoning mental or physical self-abuse in the first place

>>8415606
>that pic
my nightmare

Jacobin?

File: 1461380586927.jpg (97KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 640x640px

>>8415801
>mfw
>>8415815
I'd hardly call The Economist conservative enough to serve as a balance for that.

>>8415606
National Geographic

>>8415606
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.

>>8416409
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.

>>8415606
Lapham's

>>8416409
>Mother Jones

Looney-tunes Salon-tier fluff.

>>8416422
>>8416425
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.

>>8416440
Whatever you say, my friend, whatever you say.

>MOther Jones have an extremely well researched stories

Whatever you say.

>>8416452
Honest question, what are your critiques to those magazines? and what are the magazines you consider God tier and why?

>>8416418
Judging by their online content, it's bretty gud. I may do that.

>>8416471
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.

>>8416422
Why would anyone want to read conservative rags?

NYRB is solid and relatively cheap.

>>8415702
Both are dull.

>>8417540
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

>>8415702
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

File: 1469323515100.png (547KB, 635x640px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 635x640px

>>8415606
Download everything you simple pleb. . .

>>8415747
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.

>>8415750
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.

>>8417675
Granta is great, although are a hit and miss in recent years

>>8417887
LRB is fucking fantastic and more than just a lit mag

>>8415606
private eye. le monde diplomatique.

>>8416418
Only correct patrician answer.

>>8415815
>left-wing propaganda
>and right-wing propaganda for "balance"
how about no propaganda whatsoever and keeping your mind unpoisoned

>>8416422
>he's a lefty
>we can't have that!

>>8418569
Everything is propaganda.

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

>>8418590
>Everything is propaganda.

no, not really.

BUT

Nothing is apolititcal.

>>8418590
some things are worse than others. but you can't balance garbage with more garbage

>>8418618
Same thing. Ideology (not the Zizek kind) permeates all news sources to the point of twisting them extremely. Although as >>8418625 says,
some things are definitely worse than others.

>>8418625
try not to predicate your arguments on loaded statements

>>8418644
Autism.

>>8418640
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.

>>8418691
This is where you have to let go of the autism and understand that language is (thankfully) not exact.

Did you read my post?

>>8418650
Funny that you'd imagine "lel ur autism" applies to pepple pointing out use of loaded language

>>8418715
Autism.

>>8418702
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

>>8418775
I was talking about the use of the word "propaganda".

>>8418780
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".

>>8418838
Your offence of my use of propaganda conveniently ignores my argument.

>>8418887
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?

>>8417501
Because conservatism is the new counterculture in the art world.

>>8417799
The Baffler talks a lot of shit about how different they are to just be The Atlantic 2.0.

>>8418947
You're so pseud it hurts.

>>8421374
Yes, it hurts because a pseud like me has been able point out your fuck ups. embarassing.

>>8422046
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.

>>8415815
The Economist is liberal though.

>>8416418
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).

>>8422174
have you read any LRB? if so, how do they compare?

>>8417874
What's wrong with The Economist? I still read it sometimes and it seems good.

>>8422190
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.

>>8422222
Good numbers, comfy post

File: 1471762002360.jpg (8KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x236px

>>8415606
fwedwrehgxojrtio waj lcsrmb bpos;