There’s something inherently repulsive about smarmy liberal language, and the juxtaposition with Playboy is just too much
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Based Mia. Playboy has always been a liberal elitist wannabe publication. What little 'journalism" they've actually done over the years is just a cliff notes Rolling Stone with porn and extra spicy misogyny on top.
Now I'm curious if playboy has done any journalism of significance. Have they?
No, but they used to publish interviews with politicians and some other important people. Iirc, an interview that Jimmy Carter gave to Playboy talking about cutting aid to the military Juntas in South America (mostly because Brazil and Argentina were developing Nuclear Weapons with West Germany's help) which caused panic and accelerated their collapse.
I believe Hunter S Thompson used to write for them.
Yeah. "I just read it for the articles", was as much a real thing as a joke. Playboy hired many serious writers and journalists to pen articles for them over the years. In terms of page count the nudes were a relatively small part of the magazine. Certainly the focus, but if you just wanted to read it for the articles there were often articles worth reading.
I’ll mention for any zoomers in the thread that prior to the internet rotting our brains, it was common to have magazine racks in your bathroom or in your living room and just have the most bottom of the barrel schlock in there. I’m not saying there’s never anything of value on Twitter. But Twitter is shit. Similar dynamic. You wanna know where boomers get their humor from? Go read an issue of Readers’ Digest. It’s uncanny how much it reads like a Boomer’s Facebook feed.
Point being that Playboy being kinda sorta legit was more noteworthy in a time where treat addled burgerlanders were buying subscriptions to stuff that was all fluff or all porn.
From what I saw the articles weren't journalism though. It was way more focused on artists and stories than journalism.
Totes fair.
To piggyback on what @captcha@hexbear.net said, most significant sci-fi authors of the 60's and 70's found their mainstream audiences through Playboy (though obviously in retrospect most of what they wrote was fairly reactionary trash, but better reactionary trash than the majority of fiction that was written then), even people like Isaac Asimov wrote fiction for Playboy at one point. Otherwise they were never really known for their "journalism".
Critical support because I think she denounced the Lebanese communists