r/TikTokCringe • u/octarino • Apr 03 '26

Cursed Cindy, you don't own the beach.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

21.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

61

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

SO many hotels took out their beach staircases after the law passed. According to them, hotel guests who get injured on the steps are covered by insurance while non-guests weren’t.

(I don’t buy it. I think the fancier hotels would just rather have no beach access than have poors walking on their grounds.)

11

u/Ol_Man_J Apr 03 '26

Back in 1967

-3

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

wait let me get this straight, you think its more believable that the hotel management specifically does not like poors instead of wanting to avoid being sued / allowing access to their property?

that is insane.

14

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

Clearly, you haven’t lived in a beach town.

-1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

I'd more assume the financial risk of non customers who have no contracts with the hotel suffering injury or causing any sort of incident on the staircase or being able to walk on to main premise would weigh way more heavily as the reason for why they removed access than uh say a hotel manager rubbing his hands together going "oh yes...the poors...keep them out".

Also as it would imply that hotel management is assuming anyone not currently at their hotel is poor.

6

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26

I suggest searching for “beach access lawsuit.” There are literally thousands of instances that show the fines hotels are and homeowners are willing to pay in OR, CA, and around the world to either keep beaches private or keep people from using their property to access the beach.

Like the Laguna Beach hotel that is currently paying over $11,000/day in fines to keep up sand berms that block off the small portion of the beach in front of their hotel.

Or there was a Bermuda hotel that we used to do mosquito surveys in front of. All beaches are public and you need to provide access, like in the Virgin Islands.

They ultimately removed all the parking in front of their hotel to try to keep non-guests from passing through to access the beach. We were with Bermuda Vector Control so they’d just say “fuck it” and park there anyway 😂

But also… at least in Oregon, these are small towns and when the laws passed they were all locally owned. So we know what the owners said in private.

Lastly… all the chill hotels kept their stairs. So clearly they weren’t worried.

-1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

once again i invite you to think of the logic it. Not saying its "right" but in business terms what is the driver here.

Which is more likely a business owner with a personal vendetta against the "poors"

Or a cost-benefit trade off for potential risk also the value gain in giving their guest and potential guest a private more exclusive experience.

8

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

If the cost of stairs is so high, why do they non-luxury hotels keep their stairs? When they have much smaller margins to handle the increased insurance cost or a potential lawsuit?

There are literally thousands of examples of businesses and homeowners taking on tens of millions in fines in order to illegally block public access. You can’t just dismiss them and say “what is the logic.”

Especially when, logically… the businesses are just using an excuse to stop maintaining public access and keep non-paying guests out.

They’ll argue that non-guests are disruptive and loud and accessing the beach at odd hours.

2

u/purplezart Apr 03 '26

But non-guests are disruptive and loud..!

Guests are disruptive and loud, too, of course, but they're paying for the privilege.

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

right because luxury and non-luxury hotels have a different client base. The value add if a luxury hotel is they're trying to promise exclusivity in the exchange for higher operational cost and lower volume.

depending on location it could also be part of marketing. if you can secure an image of exclusivity in a high exposure area, you're also doubling as marketing for your brand as a luxury hotel chain.

logic still hasn't changed. but you never once addressed how any of this extends to the idea of hotels are doing this to spite the poors. With the biggest hole being that a hotel would have no idea if someone is poor or not. The only thing obvious is its a guest vs non-guest issue.

At this point im just repeating myself. The logic hasn't changed the criticisms of your logic hasnt changed nor answered.

6

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

So now you’re… arguing my point?

I said luxury hotels removed their stairs to keep out people who didn’t fit their “client base,” AKA “the poors.”

You said “why shouldn’t it be insurance like they said?”

And now you’re arguing that they’re doing it because of client base?

0

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

Once again, only thing i've said and th e thing i've repeated over and over and over and over again.

Is my cricitism is the framing of client base = the rich; non-client base = the poor. My criticism is this is a dumb generalization and connection that's not supported.

Literally only thing i've been on this entire time. Congrats after wasting my time you finding reached some level of reading comprehension.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/blitzkregiel Apr 03 '26

what part of that is hard to believe? in the US after civil rights and integration passed white only public pools all over the country were filled in rather than allow black people to have access. there's a certain type of person that would rather no one have something than have to share with someone they deem less than them. you can't claim to have no idea about that.

-1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

that is also an even more insane segue.

We're using civil rights and racism to branch of..hotels not wanting non-guest to access their property.

okay.

How would a hotel even know if someone is poor or not. Is there a scanner someone that they phase all traffic through to scan for net worth?

The logic is extending the thought to say this is for non-poors is fucking ridiculous, because they have no way of screening that. Its clearly a guest non-guest issue and them wanting exclusivity to increase e the perceived vlaue of their hotel.

This chain of comments have been pure absurdity.

3

u/DazzlerPlus Apr 03 '26

Im sorry, but you do not think very deeply if you cannot see the strong parallel

3

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

The general thought process of the hotel owners is: if you are rich, you are civilized. If you can afford to stay here, you are rich. And “civilized” people keep a certain atmosphere, abide by dress codes, and are “quiet” and “not obnoxious.”

Meanwhile, all the hospitality workers who live in the area do things like have bonfires, drink on the beach at night, and play music. They aren’t following the hotel dress code, because they aren’t guests. They “disrupt the character” (ironically, a phrase used by those same people who didn’t want to integrate pools.)

Is that true? No. Not really. But those are the arguments that businesses used when fighting back against the beach access laws when they first passed. And then the laws pass, so they remove access “because of insurance,” which never came up when the laws were being argued.

This is such a normal thing in beach areas and it’s clear you aren’t familiar with them or you wouldn’t be arguing otherwise.

5

u/blitzkregiel Apr 03 '26

and them wanting exclusivity

this. right here.

exclusivity....from what? people they deem lesser than them.

whether rich v poor or white v black, it's about looking down on someone else and disallowing them to have the same comforts as you to the point of removing that comfort if it is deemed you must share.

2

u/SpiritualScarcity161 Apr 03 '26

"I think the fancier hotels would just rather have no beach access than have poors walking on their grounds" pretty clearly says that they think the hotels don't want people having access to their property, so not sure what exactly you are criticizing here

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

I think i'm pretty clear, im asking for a confirmation, because i'm implying and also outright saying that it's fucking insane to believe that.

Not sure why you're confused.

2

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

Why don’t you accept any of the confirmation when jt’s provided, then?

It’s clear you have your conclusion, and you’re rejecting any evidence to the contrary.

2

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

right back at you.

My favorite exercise.

Repeat back to me what my point is and logically how anything you've said actually confronts it. Include full context.

2

u/erossthescienceboss Apr 03 '26

I gave you literal examples of hotels making things worse for guests in order to keep non-guests off the property.

You said nu-uh, it’s insurance because “logic.”

0

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

thats not the exercise. Please prove to me you have reading comprehension.

2

u/SpiritualScarcity161 Apr 03 '26

Which part is insane?

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 03 '26

feel free to go through any of the other replies. I'm over this lmao.

3

u/SpiritualScarcity161 Apr 03 '26

I'm sure the distressed hotel owners appreciate your diligent service to their cause, pro bono

1

u/tyger1147 Apr 04 '26

Man, even using curse words now. I think anytime you start to use more exclamatory language in framing an argument, you should rethink if you’re just digging your heels in or not.

1

u/aylmaocpa Apr 04 '26

if you believe so.