Paul Carr isn't a meanie, and he thinks Julia Allison is "smart, tech-savvy and funny." He writes a column on how bitchiness rules on the Interwebs, and it's not always called for. But here's why he loses cred on this one. When writing about Julia's performance at DLD, he says:
It was an impressive performance both from Julia and from Loic, who showed how his company, Seesmic, uses video to make anonymous commenting almost impossible.
Um, Paul? Did you watch the same panel we did?
Also, we're sick of people who use this excuse: "having read the vile abuse aimed at Sarah and Julia and countless other women who dare to showcase their abilities online..."
Um, no. We have nothing against women who showcase their abilities online. We are women. We like smart women who can do smart things on the Internet. Julia is not one of them. Jesus. We're so tired of this bullshit.
I found this column interesting and definitely in line with most snark writers who end up finding the rush/emptiness in hating on someone (I remember Dave Eggers having an essay to that effect years ago). I can even "agree to disagree" when it comes to Julia's performance at DLD. I watched the link online and just find her performance/business strategy silly and amateurish. But what I do find strange is that this link showed up pretty much as soon as Julia got internet access again. That she/"Ashley" posted it on Scary Mary's comment box then as well. That it was posted here and there without comment. And there's a mindblowingly obvious Julia-penned comment on the Question of the Day commentary. Here it is, by "Kyle":
ReplyDeleteI dunno... call me crazy, but I think:
All of the stuff that's happening right now, here, is part of the experience. The essence of true lifecasting, as I see it, is that you get it all - the ups and downs, the connected moments and the without wi-fi ones. Shit happens; that's what makes it real. I think it's unfair for us, as readers, to expect slickly produced content like you'd get from a fully-staffed, corporate-owned lifestyle site. This is not that, and I don’t believe that’s what we really want from this site. Could it be like that more? Sure. And will it be, eventually? I think so, if that’s their intention. I just have a problem with the thought that because they had a not-so-wonderful past couple of weeks, the whole venture is a failure. That’s dumb. Remember: these are people we’re talking about, and this is their baby that you’re trashing. Unfair and uncalled for, really. They’re putting themselves out there. They’re trying something new. So what if there are kinks along the way? There are ALWAYS kinks along the way — in life and in any project. It’s just that we’re able to see them, here, live.
So... Can we relax a little and let it unfold a little without being so freaking horrible to them? Maybe? A little?
xo ya'll
Thank you, NSRB. I, too, wondered if the newly spiritual Mr. Carr had watched the same DLD panel seen in that cringe-worthy video.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Julia Allison is "showcasing her abilities" online, those abilities are meager indeed, and consist mostly in kissy face NonSociety ManSandwich (TM) photos or pseudo-insightful blather about life as seen by a narcissistic 28 year old who wishes she were 18. Puh-leeze.
And yeah, Ashley = Julia. QED.
ReplyDeleteAnd? I keep having nightmares about Julia Allison skipping/bopping her merry bunnkins way up onto the stage at her DLD panel. At least she waited until the end to break into her cheerleader Yay! schtick, which is so old by now it really ought to be retired.
ReplyDeleteAs a woman I am just so freaking proud of the way JA "showcases her abilities" online. So. Freaking. Proud.
ReplyDeleteThanks RBNS, I read that a day or two ago and thought it was utter b.s. think Mr. Carr is one of a long line of men whose thinking ability is possibly affected by other biological imperatives and who's smitten with Ms. Allison to the point of inability to see reality.
ReplyDeleteLook at how many times he twittered JA's DLD comments on his twitter stream. (Was she that brilliant at the panel? I thought her performance was embarrassing and I am fair enough to admit I've seen good performances from her as well. This was NOT one IMO and judging from the comments on the DLD page (if they are legit) other attendees thought so too and thought so enough to actually be bothered to go comment about it. I certainly didn't see any positive comments about her peformance there on the DLD page.)
Then again from his writing and logic in that article I think he may simply have trouble seeing reaity period not just when it comes to JA perhaps.
I saw Sarah Lacey at SXSW (on video I mean) and the criticism of her was very fair, and her reaction (f you all or whatever she said on video interview to her critics)was unprofessional and absurd. She unlike JA actually seems to work hard but there is stil plenty that can be criticized there too.
While both of them may get sexist comments and critique (I don't doubt that they do or could) the problem is in lumping all critique against professional females, especially ones who are considered sexy, cute or atractive, as being sexist.
That is what Paul Carr seems to do here, neglecting to acknnowledge that both women receive legitimate criticism along with perhaps sexist comment. "Vile" is subjective. Even "abuse" is subjective. Maybe if Carr had followed the "show not tell" edict of good writing and given examples instead of only his assessment of such comments, we could judge for ourselves.
(By the way, on a side note, if you look at comments to JA on twitter they are either from men who lust after her or women who James Bond?)
Sorry last line should say "If you look at comments to JA on twitter, they are either from men who lust after her or women who want to be her. Do you think JA is the female James Bond?"
ReplyDelete--Ineffable
There's no way this guy has any objectivity. If you read his tweets from DLD, you'll see he was obsessed with JA. He quotes her a dozen times, at least. At first, I thought he was mocking her, because the quotes are more like evidence of her stupidity. Looks like Julia's magic cleavage hypnotized another victim...
ReplyDeleteWow! The Paul Carr article came out January 28, and yet notice of it from "Ashley" only came on this website two hours ago -- the same time that Julia got internet capability, and twittered a thanks to him about it! Hi Ashley P! Hope you're having fun in Switzerland!
ReplyDelete-- Emily
Were I a more terrible person, I'd conjecture that JA "showcased her talents" for Paul in the bathroom of that piano bar.
ReplyDeleteactions speak louder than words kyle (aka julia)
ReplyDeletewhen you go to CES and in the only precious time you claim to have post porno convention pics, dont produce content, go to DLD and post pics of yourself on a mechanical bull, illegally minipulate google, make phoney indorsments, go to an innoguration and (actually: claim to go to an inoguration)show zero signs that you are actually at one. ext
but you SAY its your *baby* what do we believe?
http://twitter.com/teamcharlsie/status/1163922146
ReplyDeleteDoesn't care if you are thrilled or not. It was all the truth.
7 minutes ago from web
Why, why did Sam Seaborn ever leave??
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:39
ReplyDeleteBullseye! In that last "Kyle" post are the words JA blogged as the advice her Grandmother gave her--hell it was the caption of the post Let It Unfold
So, she does not have a second to spare-- but she is writing comments on her own site under the name of "kyle"
I think the only reason she stated she rarely visits QOTD 'cause she was sure that it would 'throw people off' as to just how many comments are actually hers.
This is pure JA, she wasn't getting much Gawker coverage and she had to create a place to keep buzz about her generating. So she both: sets bait; post an e-mail about someone calling her fat; hang out on QOTD to show fake support.
pathetic.jules.
On another note, Meghan claiming that she's been having LONG -- long! -- top-secret conversations with about Important Matters at Davos is risible. Like these "revolutionaries" are just jonesing to confide in these embarrassing, groupie-like morons.
ReplyDeleteSam Seaborn was ruining The West Wing, too bad he didn't go sooner.
ReplyDelete