Chlo Grace Moretz was one of many people who spoke out after Kim Kardashian posted a nude selfie on Twitter.

The 19-year-old actress – and self-proclaimed “feminist from birth” – criticised Kim for being a bad role model to young girls:

While a lot of people agreed with Chloe, Kim gained a fair few supporters when she responded to criticismwith an impassioned open letter. In it, she explained:

“I am empowered by my body. I am empowered by my sexuality. I am empowered by feeling comfortable in my skin. I am empowered by showing the world my flaws and not being afraid of what anyone is going to say about me. And I hope that through this platform I have been given, I can encourage the same empowerment for girls and women all over the world.”

Chloe was forced to clarify that she wasn’t “slut-shaming” Kim…

…And she has now given an interview, justifying her response. Speaking to Elle Magazine, she explained:

“All I’ll say is that I think a lot of things can be misconstrued in a lot of ways. And I think if people open their minds more, and they try to look deeper into something than just something that is a very big, hot, fiery buttonto hide behind…I think if peoplelooked into something bigger that I was trying to speak upon, they wouldn’t be so easy to fire back silly, miscellaneous things.”

She also expressed that she personally turns down roles in which woman are “overtly sexualized in a masculine, stereotypical [context]”, because for her, “it’s just aboutmaking choices [so that]I can have a young woman look at the movie and not be negatively influenced”.

When asked what she would say toa young woman, trying to negotiate the minefield that can be social media, she had some stellar advice:

“Depict yourself adequately as what you want to be seen as. Don’t front, don’t put something out there that you feel isn’t realistic and doesn’t portray who you are. Just be yourself, be you, and don’t be afraid to speak your mind.”

Your move, Kim..

H/T Elle Magazine

Image Credits: HD Wallpapers

Read more:

For a recent TV documentary, a panel of experts came together to re-examine the case of JonBent Ramsey – the six-year-old “child beauty queen” who wasfound murderedin her family’s basement on Boxing Day, 1996.

Initially, suspicion had fallen on her parents. HoursbeforeJonBent’s body was discovered, her mother had called the police, reporting her daughter missing and explaining that she had found a ransom note, asking for $118,000, on the staircase of thefamily’s home. Not only was this almost exactly the amount thatJonBent’s fatherhad received in a recent bonus from work, but it was later discovered that the note was written using pen and paper from the Ramsey’s house.

Later on in the day, a detective asked the Ramseys if they could search their house, to determine thatJonBent definitely wasn’t there. John Ramsey, looking in the basement with two of his friends, found his daughter’s body -covered with her favourite white blanket – with a cord around her neck, duct tape over her mouth, and her wrists tied above her head.

While investigators initially thought that one ofJonBent’s parents was guilty of her murder, upon re-examining the evidence, experts have concluded that it was her brother – the then nine-year-old Burke – who killed her.

Their hypothesis – among other things – took into account the fact thatJonBent’s autopsy revealed that she had eaten pineapple shortly before her death, and police investigating the crime scene found a bowl with pineapple in it, covered in Burke’s fingerprints – in the kitchen.

They believe that JonBent had come down in the night, and tried to steal some of her brother’s food. This had enraged him, and he had lashed out, hitting – and accidentally killing – his sister with a nearby torch. (It wouldn’t be the first time he had been violent towards her; he had hit her with a golf club, leaving her with a scar on her face, just the year before).

To protect their son, John and Patsy Ramseydecided to cover up this accident, and stage the ransom note and basement murder.

The documentary presented plenty of evidence to support this theory: using new technology, they uncovered an extra six seconds of audio from the 911 call that Patsy Ramsey made upon apparently discovering that her daughter was missing. After she thought that she’d hung up,JonBent’s mother can be heard saying, “what did you do? Help me, Jesus“, while her father says “we’re not speaking to you“.

While it wasclaimed that Burke was asleep in bed the whole time, he can be heard asking his parents, “what did you find?“.

Avideo of Burke being interviewed by a child psychologistabout his sister’s murder was also deemed suspicious: the nine-year-old didn’t seem at all concerned at the suggestion that his sister’s killer might come back, saying, “I’m basically just going on with my life, you know?”.

While he refused to participate in the making of CBS’ documentary,Burke Ramsey – now 29 – has given Dr. Phil an exclusive interview, in which he vehemently denied having any involvement in his sister’s death:

“You wont find any evidence because thats not what happened.Theres been a few people who said thats not even physically possible for a nine-year-old to do that.”

When asked who he thought was responsible for JonBenet’s murder, Burke suggested that it might be someone who had seen her compete in a child beauty pageant:

“I kinda always thought it was a paedophile who saw her in one of the pageants and snuck in [to our house], who knows.”

While nothing has been proven, however, it seems that evidence is pointing towards Burke being the guilty party. As Dr. Werner Spitz told CBS Detroit:

“If you really, really use your free time to think about this case, you cannot come to a different conclusion.

Its the boy who did it, whether he was jealous, or mentally unfit or something I dont know the why, Im not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here. And the parents changed the scene to make it look like something it wasnt.”

H/T Rolling Stone / / Daily Mail

Read more:


Mashable OP-ED: This post reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of Mashable as a publication.

For those of us who lived through the dotcom crash of 2000, plummeting tech stocks are nothing new. But I can’t remember ever seeing a company lose 40% of its value in just a few hours — and that’s what happened to Zynga Wednesday afternoon.

The online gaming giant’s share price, which once stood as high as $16, has been trading in the region of $5 recently — until it released its second quarter earnings report Wednesday, and the price wilted like an untended FarmVille crop to $3 in after-hours trading.

Investors, it seemed, had finally lost patience with Zynga founder and CEO Mark Pincus, and his vague explanations of how the company will continue to grow.

I can’t say I blame them. I like Pincus; I knew him back in the days when he founded a great little social network called Tribe, which plugged the gap between Friendster and Facebook. But I also saw him interviewed on stage at the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last week in Aspen; it was hardly a bravura performance.

Pincus spoke haltingly; he was much more precise in defining Zynga’s challenges (for one, the smartphone boom has created an environment where people spend less time in his games) than in identifying solutions (there isn’t even a rough launch date for a FarmVille mobile app). No wonder a cheeky Twitter executive tweeted Wednesday that Zynga engineers were always welcome to come interview at his company. (The tweet has since been deleted.)

Gaming vs. Gambling

So how can Zynga right itself? Where do the future revenue streams lie, in a world where people are simply playing less Draw Something, having fewer Words With Friends, and slowly stepping away from nearly all of the Villes?

As I see it, there are two main possibilities: legalized gambling on the one hand, and smarter, more compelling, more original games on the other.

Gambling — or real-money gaming, as Pincus calls it — is a potential solution the CEO returns to a little too loudly and a little too often. As he points out, Zynga is already home to the world’s largest poker game, its biggest slots and bingo enterprise. Why, all it would take is a change in the entire federal regulatory environment, and Zynga would be a virtual Caesar’s Palace, but one the size of the entire Strip!

Investors aren’t buying it. Zynga is no Vegas casino, no offshore operation. It’s a company firmly rooted in California, with nearly all its customer base in states where gambling is illegal. Pincus is hardly the CEO to talk multiple governments into making a change to gambling law that would hurt the casino lobby. (One wonders if even Steve Jobs could meet that challenge.)

The End of Following

That leaves better-written, more compelling, more original gameplay. I’m told by Zynga sources there is a movement in this direction already — but that it’s hard to change the culture of a company with a tendency to either buy its games outright or be heavily influenced by others in its creativity, to put it mildly. (I hear jaws dropped and heads shook all around the Zynga building when The Ville, a game not entirely unlike The Sims, was unveiled.)

Pincus is right to say, as he does, that games should be social, simple to pick up, effortless to start playing, and capable of being consumed on the go, in bite-sized chunks. Do that and your audience is almost limitless. I give Zynga a lot of credit for shaking up the stodgy old computer and videogame industry with this model.

But he’s wrong to believe, as much of the evidence suggests, that games should be dumbed-down clickfests and meaningless reward loops. The great thing about gaming, especially when it’s social, is that it lets our imaginations soar. It lets us have fun by playing someone else — and playing the role of someone else.

I would argue that some of Zynga’s most successful games have been its smartest — the ones that sneak in some self-improvement while you’re enjoying yourself in your downtime. The Scrabble-like Words With Friends bestows an appreciation of the English language; Draw Something hones artistic skills, however mildly; FarmVille teaches agriculture, of all things. None would look particularly out of place in the classroom next to fully educational games such as Oregon Trail.

More Fun, Less Marketing

That pleasure wears off fast, however, when those titles are stuffed full of ads for other games, overly-eager requests to hook you up with more players, and nudges towards virtual goods purchasing. (The first two, plus a poor and completely unnecessary redesign, are the reasons I’ve been able to shed my long-standing Words With Friends addiction in recent weeks.)

I’d much rather drop a few dollars on a great game than constantly be on my guard for commercial purpose within it. Wouldn’t you? In-app purchases need to be super subtle, obviously optional; the game environment needs to tease our minds rather than our wallets.

For instance, my wife is addicted to DragonVale, a Zynga-esque game by Backflip Studios about breeding dragons. Ask her why she keeps returning to it, and she’ll tell you about the thoroughly silly descriptions you get to read when you buy a new dragon. There was attention to detail in the writing, and it paid off.

Mobile is a vast new frontier for gaming; we don’t know half of what works yet. What we do know is that the world is getting smarter, to the tune of an IQ point a year on average.

Maybe millions of us are ready for Choose Your Own Adventure-style text quests with multiple players, or games where you compete to compose the catchiest tune on a simplified instrument, or a galaxy-wide empire-building god game you only get to play five minutes at a time. Who knows until we try?

I’d like to see Zynga throw a thousand wacky, creative ideas at the wall and see which ones stick. Stop trying so hard to make them all look the same. Iterate fast, fail fast, and win with something you never expected — rather than trying to provide a platform for other developers to win on.

With more than a billion dollars in the bank, the company can certainly afford to invest in good game design — and investors may buy that strategy more than the unlikely promise of legalized gambling.