By Kristine Keller

There are times when you’re playing back a situation in your mind and a split screen appears. On one side of the screen there’s reality—the version of events that actually happened. But it’s the second screen we zero in on in high-definition, with surround sound and unequivocal certainty— the twisted version of reality. When the aloof waitress pours your coffee only halfway and then throws your check on the table with steely eyes, you’re convinced she’s a moody person all the time. Or when your loved one comes home and offers a curt “hi” before shutting himself away, you think he’s mad at you.

It’s easy to delve into the muddled inner corridors of our minds and jump to irrational conclusions. Our brains have innumerable associations to make every day at extraordinary energetic costs. We find ways to maximize our cerebral energy, and sometimes the result is making hasty judgments and associations. Sometimes these quick associations are helpful—there’s no need to re-evaluate your stance on Chris Brown (blech) or Beyoncé (goddess)—but when doing so, we must aim for being a truthful and insightful observer of others’ behaviors, rather than misrepresenting actions that falsify reality.

The most prominent exaggerated thoughts can make us irrational, illogical creatures, one snapchat away from sending our best friend a selfie sad face. This past weekend, these fallacious thoughts took the cerebral stage when I offered to dispense advice to a friend trapped in text banter purgatory. “She doesn’t like me anymore,” he moaned. “Her replies went from sexy paragraphs to the equivalent of a verbal lobotomy.” I rolled up my sleeves and consoled him: “Maybe she lost her job this week. Maybe she’s got a thorny family problem. You don’t know what kind of cross she’s bearing right now.”

I’ve been on that sinking armchair before, and this propitiating advice is unsatisfying or ignored 90 percent of the time. My friend committed a common cognitive distortion known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. This is the tendency for us to attribute internal, intrinsic motivations to the behaviors of others, while minimizing the impact of external situations. These situations may be unpredictable and leave us, at best, a little snippy, and at worst, on the floor in shambles, foaming at the mouth with tequila and chipotle. In tandem, we’re prone to personalizing these situations and led to thinking their acts are a direct reflection of how other people feel about us.

After erroneously underestimating the impact of external situations, your mind might amble to a related cognitive distortion, all-or-nothing thinking, which goes something like this: He didn’t text me back, and it’s been two hours, so he’s never going to text me again and this will always happen in my life. Before you weep into your hands and curse the sky, relax. Turns out, his dad was just kidnapped on the L train by a belligerent goon on the lam. Your sometimes-boy has got bigger fish to fry, so you have to cut him some slack for his lack of emoji-cyber reciprocation. The “never” and “always” extreme labels that we generalize from one situation leave us unable to see anything in shades of gray.

When trying to decipher the veracity behind others’ actions, we only have the information presented before us, especially when evaluating the actions of strangers. But in focusing solely on internal characteristics to make sense of brusque behavior or confusing commentary, we often deceive ourselves. We can remedy this by engaging in mindful empathy, and imagining the manifold reasons that could have contributed to someone’s ill-perceived behavior. Taking a second to think about the kind of day your waitress or loved one had before personalizing actions can keep these distortions in check and our negative conclusions to a minimum. Maybe then we can merge our split screens into one and have a better viewing experience all around.

Chris Brown, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

A brawl in June between rapper Chris Brown’s and R&B singer Drake’s crews at Soho’s Greenhouse left nearly two dozen club goers injured. Now, Entertainment Enterprises, which owns the trademark for Greenhouse, is suing the two stars on the grounds that the fight damaged the club’s reputation.

The company filed a $16 million claim against the pair on Wednesday. The lawsuit contends that before the fight, the company had reached a $4 million “agreement-in-principle” to license the Greenhouse brand to nightclubs around the country, according to DNAinfo. “The cachet and prestige associated with the Greenhouse marks” was lost, however, the lawsuit argues, once they “became associated with the kind of violent, life-threatening riot engaged in by [Brown and Drake].”

Drake, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Brown’s representatives have not commented on the suit, and Drake’s representatives have said he was leaving the club when the fight broke out and did not injure anyone. The lawsuit maintains that no matter how directly involved the two were, though, they still instigated — or at least made no effort to stop — the fight, according to CBS.

N.Y.P.D. temporarily closed the club after the incident, but allowed it to reopen once it paid a fine and hired more security. The State Liquor Authority has fined Greenhouse before for other fights and bad behavior, according to DNAinfo.

No criminal charges have been filed in the fight. The actual owners of the club are not involved in the lawsuit, and have not commented on it.

Femme Fatale - photo by Eva Rinaldi

“The SLA will not tolerate violent bars that break the law,” the SLA said in its statement regarding the club’s liquor suspension. “This should serve as a message that this agency will not hesitate to take immediate action when licensees pose a threat to public health and safety.”

After the assault, which resulted in filed lawsuits by two of the clubs female patients as well as by NBA star Tony Parker, the SLA proceeded to stamp 17 Alcoholic Beverage Control violations against the club. They also cited ten total physicals assaults inside the club between March 11 and June 12.

This doesn’t mean that W.i.P./Greenhouse is completely in the dumps just yet.

According to the New York Observer, the club will reopen on July 8 after, as confirmed by one of the club’s spokespeople, reach an agreement “in principle” to open in coming week.

One can only assume a club that doesn’t sell liquor won’t be servicing many patrons. And even if the Drake/Chris Brown shenanigan attracts attention and customers, what will they be selling?

If you still plan on going to the club when it opens, Google Maps says club Shelter, on 34 Vandam St. is only 262 feet away from 150 Varick St. Also, City Winery is in between the two… but we’re not hinting at anything.

–Nick Gallinelli

NBA star Tony Parker to sue the W.i.P club in New York for $20 million after bottle-smashing brawl left him with a risky eye injury.

by Laurent Berstecher

San Antonio Spurs’ Tony Parker may not be able to lead the French basketball team in London for the 2012 Summer Olympics on account of of an eye injury. Parker was hit in the eye by a piece of glass during a brawl between rappers Drake and Chris Brown’s entourages at the W.i.P nightclub in SoHo earlier this month.

Parker, who initially declared he was fine after the incident, recently revealed that he had to go through extensive surgery to remove a shard of glass that had penetrated 99% of his left eye. “I almost lost my eye,” said Parker, who is currently confined to his hotel room to prevent infections. Parker will have to wait until July 5th to go see a specialist in NYC, who will determine whether he is fit to play in the London Olympics. In the meantime, ‘TP’ has joined the rest of the French squad in Pau, but has yet to start training. London looks uncertain for Parker, who is already forfeit for France’s next four preparation games. However, the injury still appears to be relatively benign, and does not pose a threat to Parker’s career with the San Antonio Spurs.

Tony Parker may have avoided the worse, but it was a close call. Too close perhaps, as TP has decided to sue the W.i.P nightclub for $20 million. The lawsuit was filed on Thursday in Manhattan’s State Supreme Court. The club is accused of being negligent, as they let the two rappers inside despite their conflictual history, and continued serving them alcohol even after both parties were “clearly intoxicated.” W.i.P was also suspected of being understaffed that night, which made it harder to control the situation. Parker’s lawyer said they were waiting for the police investigation to determine whether Drake and Brown should be added as defendants.

According to TMZ, the club responded to the allegations, saying that Drake and Brown were let in because they were not particularly known to be prone to violence. In addition, W.i.P claims to have been adequately staffed, as 15 security guards were present that night. Basically, not their fault.

Tony Parker did certainly risk a major career upset in this incident, one that could have cost him a lot more than $20 million. However, it seems that, by suing the club for negligence, Parker and his lawyer are simply looking for a scapegoat. Can a club really be held accountable for the behavior of its customers? Shouldn’t the person who actually injured Parker be charged instead?

Perhaps the most convincing accusation is that organizers continued selling large quantities of alcohol to both Drake and Brown’s entourages, even though they visibly had enough. But really, imagine that you own a nightclub. When you sell a bottle for $500 net profit, it’s hard to stop. You might even be tempted to say “go ahead and break it’ I’ll bring you a new one” (evil genius smirk, rotating chair and cat-petting included.) Even more so if the clients are famous. If you cut them off, you’ll soon find yourself boycotted by all those slightly alcoholic celebs who don’t appreciate being told when they’ve had enough.

In the end, there is one question that really jumps out of all this: If there really was bad blood between the rappers, if everybody knew about it and it was public knowledge, if the two should have been denied entry and open bar, if they were wasted, if the situation was bound to escalate, and if he had the Olympics in a few weeks… Why the hell didn’t TP just go to another nightclub?

What started like another celebrity evening at the W.I.P degenerated into a full-blown bottle fight after an argument was sparked between rappers Drake and Chris Brown. Fans may already be familiar with the two star’s ongoing rivalry over the singer Rihanna, which led up to a twitter war last month. Thursday’s fight allegedly started after the two rappers and their respective entourages exchanged a series of provocations. Meek Mill, who was part of Drake’s entourage, was reportedly the first to throw a bottle, to which the other side obviously responded with… more bottles.

The fight left five people injured, including Chris Brown, NBA player Tony Parker, as well as a 24-year-old Australian tourist who was hit in the head by Dom Perignon collateral dammage. The club has since been shut down by the NYPD, who is currently investigating the events.

On Friday, Council Speaker Christine Quinn issued an official statement in which she called for an emergency meeting with her office, the NYPD and the Nightlife Association to discuss current regulations surrounding bottle service. It has been suggested that the council will consider passing a law making bottle service illegal in New York City.

While this project has been criticized by many as another instance of government over-extension, another, perhaps more pressing question shines through: Would the elimination of bottle service actually make New York clubs safer?

Let us examine the argument here. At first glance, it seems that the city’s main quarrel with bottle service is that said bottles may end up being used as weapons. Senator Tom Duane made it clear that the age of using broken bottles as means of persuasion is over in America: “This is not the Wild West […] Bar fights, bottles being used, they are not permitted.”

Ok, so the city doesn’t want people hurling bottles at each other when they go out clubbing. Point taken. Clearly Brown and Drake’s posses were not aware of that fact. But is banning the bottle really the best solution? Following this logic, shouldn’t we be banning any item that could potentially be used as a weapon?

We have all seen Prison Break, or Oz, or if you live in a cave, The Shawshank Redemption at least. We all know how easy it is to kill someone with a toothbrush. Well, maybe they make it seem easier than it actually is, but you get the point. With a little help from Bath Salts, even your teeth can become a deadly weapon, as proven by Miami’s new zombie mascot. Are we heading towards a general tooth ban? It would certainly make it much easier to outlaw toothbrushes in the process. But I think that we can all agree: probably not the best policy decision.

So, why bottles you ask? Well, there seems to be more to the story than simply using them as weapons. You see, not only can you smash a bottle on someone’s face (if there are no famous rappers around, an Australian tourist will do), but you can also drink what it contains. Before you smash it that is. However, drinking the precious liquor in the bottle may make you a lot more likely to end up smashing it. On someone’s face. Hence the dilemma.

Then again, this dilemma seems like a forced one. Supposing that booze is actually capable of turning a perfectly civilized gentleman into a blood-crazed bar brawler (and it is), there is to date no research proving that this undesirable side-effect is influenced by the container. Whether served in a bottle, or a glass, or a plastic cup, the end result is pretty much the same: people get drunk. And when they’re drunk, they break stuff. On other people’s faces. Ok, ok, you get it.

I am surprised that nobody has considered forcing club owners to tape bubble-wrap around their Grey Goose. Think about it. Not only would this be a cheap, rapper-friendly alternative to a ban on bottle service, but who doesn’t love bubble-wrap? Mr. Bloombeg, if you are reading this…

by Laurent Berstecher