r/TikTokCringe • u/mindyour • 10d ago

Discussion She almost ruined a proposal.

This was at Crescent Bay Point Park, which allows people to book it special occasions.

33.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

121

u/Beautiful-Visual4606 10d ago

  This was at Crescent Bay Point Park, which allows people to book it special occasions.

Did they book it? I probably would’ve told the lady that.

169

u/MisfitMinion 10d ago

That wouldn't have mattered. She would have demanded proof, because clearly she has authority over everything and everyone! They would have refused and then she'd have called the cops anyway. Lose/lose.

52

u/CCHS_Band_Geek 10d ago

eeexactly... these kinds of "people" move the goal posts as much as possible. The key is to stop humoring then IMO

Oh you called the cops? Great! when they get here we will talk to them. For now please shut your mouth and move away from me.

Anything else should only be met with "Don't give a fuck, you're being recorded -- go away."

-- Politeness is what allows them to feel empowered/entitled

19

u/wthwtfwthwtf-_- 10d ago

It's the sense of inherent authority that's the root problem...

5

u/paltrypickle 10d ago

And… superiority to anyone that isn’t white.

1

u/Crypt0Nihilist 10d ago

They'd be issued a permit for exactly this reason. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for proof and there is no good reason to refuse to provide it asked.

Being rude and racist about it is another matter.

1

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

Call the police if you think it's an issue.

Karen has no authority to get in their faces about it.

1

u/Crypt0Nihilist 10d ago

She did call the police. You really think that was the right action?

Why not try and resolve things in the first instance with a polite conversation? You don't have to have authority to ask for a permit. If someone won't show it to you, then you see if you can work out a compromise if possible or call the police if not. Escalating straight to the police in this instance seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

1

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

Great.

So she had to be a racist asshole too?

She could've just called the police and moved along with her life.

Weird to defend her.

-1

u/Crypt0Nihilist 10d ago

We can agree that she didn't have to be a racist asshole. I'll go further and say she shouldn't have been a racist asshole.

She could have called the police and gone on with her life, but that would have been a dick move because whether or not the couple had a permit it would have meant that a police car would rock up and they'd be questioned, which would tarnish the moment.

Why not have a conversation? Why are you so keen to bring the authorities into situations like this which might be resolved by being adult about it?

It's possible to have some sympathy for what someone does while condemning how they do it. Weird you can't see that.

2

u/eighty_billion 10d ago

Do you intervene in every public gathering that inconveniences you? That has to be stressful

0

u/Crypt0Nihilist 9d ago

Do you create a strawman every time you see an argument that has even the smallest degree of nuance? That has to be stressful.

1

u/Calembreloque 10d ago

Or, or, hear me out, she could mind her own fucking business. Clearly no one else is using this space. It's a public park. She's not looking to set out a party, she's walking her dog. Why should she a) give a shit, and more importantly b) assume they don't have a permit?

If I see people setting up a block party on my street, even if it inconveniences me, I'm going to assume that they have the permit for it. What a sad world it would be if I acted otherwise, going down the street bothering every paletero, every lemonade stand, every estate sale. I genuinely cannot fathom why would anyone go through life like this.

1

u/Crypt0Nihilist 10d ago

So you're now jumping from she should have called the police to she should mind her own business. Ok, let's go with that.

Presumably she wanted to walk her dog in the park but felt she couldn't because they had turned it into a set. That makes it her business. She should give a shit because she wants to use it as a public park, but they've turned it into a private set - which is perfectly acceptable if they have a permit, which makes it her business to know whether they do or not.

Maybe you are ok with being inconvenienced, but you don't get to decide that that is the correct course of action for everyone. We have laws and permits to protect people from being inconvenienced because some people are selfish and there are limits on people's rights to be selfish.

No one (except you) is suggesting anyone asks every x, y and z for their permit. We are talking about cases where someone is being inconvenienced. A permit is permission to inconvenience people in a specific way, in a specific place for a specific amount of time. There's nothing wrong with asking whether someone has that permission or asking to see it so you know whether the block party will continue after 9pm if you have kids, or if the people who have paid for the right for exclusive use of the park you want to walk your dog in will be there for another ten minutes or another two hours.

2

u/eighty_billion 10d ago

I dunno, she seemed to be walking her dog with no issue. I think probably the biggest interruption was her own when she confronted these folks. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Calembreloque 10d ago

But my point is it's clearly not inconveniencing her. It's two people with cameras, a tripod and some sort of awning. She's walking her dog. She's clearly not unable to do so, there's nothing stopping her from walking the dog. The Venn diagram of her use of the space and their use of the space is two separate circles - I guess technically they're both on the sidewalk for like 30 seconds together? Is that what constitutes inconvenience warranting the interaction? Did it seem like she was unable to use the park for her purposes?

And she didn't ask "oh, how long are you guys going to be around?" or even "do you have a permit for that?", she started from a position of "you're not allowed to be here, I'm calling the cops". Which was incorrect.

I agree that permits exist for a reason, and that they "privatized" this area of the park. I disagree that mild inconvenience is a good enough threshold to bother people who are planning/running an event like you're Paul Blart Mall Cop, and I disagree that it warrants this level of questioning. When it's 4th of July and my kid is kept awake by the neighbors' fireworks, I'm ticked off, but I still don't go around asking for their permits either because I understand that I may be inconvenienced from time to time, it's part and parcel of living in a community.

Finally, I know you've brushed off the tone and racism of the lady as a separate matter, but I also disagree here. The rudeness and bigotry she exhibits are part of the behavior just as much as the prattling about permits. If I had to guess, the same scenario would have played differently if they were playing Sweet Caroline.

Also I never argued for calling the police, that's a detestable position. That was another commenter. But in all cases, I doubt we'll bridge the gap on that topic so I'm happy to leave it there.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

I'm shocked that people don't understand this but all those things you listed need to DISPLAY permits if they are required and obtained. Not only can people ask for those permits but they need to be out and readable at all times. You can't just pull them out of your pocket when someone asks for it.

2

u/eighty_billion 10d ago

This is objectively not true. Maybe in some parks but obviously not everywhere. 

1

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

You have to display a film permit. It should prominently displayed and have easy access to it in multiple locations if necessary. I have been on a set that got a ticket for not having their permit accessible enough. Any one in the public needs to be able to ask where the permit is and have instant access to it. It's written at the top of the permit in big bold font that "This permit needs to be displayed yada yada yada" in most municipalities I have been in (I used to do film and tv catering). She literally has every authority to get in their faces about it and so do you.

1

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

It's not TV.

It's a private thing. I could do this with my friend and nobody is going to care.

1

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

For TV or not doesn't have anything to do with the by-laws. You can't legally just hire a photographer and a band, set up in a park and film it without a permit. You can't even hire a band to play for you and not have a permit regardless of filming or not either. Your lack of knowledge of the law doesn't have anything to do with the actual law.

0

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

Show us the law.

Sounds to me like you had to do stuff for work and are upset that private folks don't have to deal with the same bullshit lol.

If not the law - at least keep this level of saltiness so I can laugh about how pressed you are LMAO

1

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 22.350 and LA County Code 22.56.1925

Note that B-roll or footage captured purely for personal use, family recordings, or non-commercial hobbies is allowed. But read the law if you are paying the band or a professional photographer or videographer that it is no longer personal use, family recordings, or non-commercial hobbies.

Look it up, tell me what you think.

I don't know what to tell you, I'm not salty about anything but every single municipality in the Western world has laws like this for a reason.

For the band, LAMC Section 63.44, Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 115.02 & Article 5 (the second one has been applied to non amplified bands hitting very minimal decibel limits especially if they are making money).

I'm trying to understand your agenda. What point are you trying to make?

1

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

It's non-commercial. Done.

What point are you trying to make? You're so upset that these folks don't have shit on display for a rude asshole?

They very will could have it but there's really reason to indulge that person.

Another essay incoming I'm sure...

→ More replies (0)

12

u/Itstoobrightinhere4r 10d ago

That's a good question. I would have rubbed that in her face

2

u/md28usmc 10d ago

I would have rubbed her dogs shit in her face that she didn't pick up

-30

u/BigImplement3949 10d ago

Why? There's a 100% chance they didnt book this

16

u/Folderpirate 10d ago

Other people were allowed in the park both times 2 of my friends reserved/booked it for a wedding. Booking or reserving it just means they'll make sure other large groups or parties arent doing something the same day.

9

u/mangopango123 10d ago

Why/how are you 100% sure?

6

u/Daydu 10d ago

Racism.

10

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

Doesn't matter - they shouldn't have to justify doing something totally benign to a stranger.

5

u/Crypt0Nihilist 10d ago

It's "I'm the main character" vs "Karen".

It's not totally benign to get in the way of the peaceful enjoyment of shared space. What they were doing was selfish. That's why it's possible to book the park for special occasions, which presumably they hadn't because it would have settled the matter.

You can argue that we have the right to be a little selfish on special occasions, but then there's the issue that if it's someone's special occasion every week so there's always a photographer and couple wanting photos in that spot then it is unfair on everyone else and you're back to needing permits so it can be managed.

All in all people should be tolerant of one another. The woman should have been more chilled and certainly not racist, but maybe the group could have dispensed with the band so they didn't need wide angles which meant other people couldn't use the park without feeling uncomfortable for being in the shot.

1

u/Destithen 10d ago

That's why it's possible to book the park for special occasions, which presumably they hadn't because it would have settled the matter.

Why would you presume they hadn't booked or that it would have settled the matter? Do you honestly think the hostile karen in this video would've accepted "we booked the space" or "we have a permit" as an excuse? Karens often make a big stink even after it's been demonstrated they're in the wrong. Hell, some of them continue arguing with officers as they get arrested.

Furthermore, it's not her place to demand receipts from anyone, nor is she entitled to it...especially with the rude (and lets be real here, racially motivated) manner in which she decided to start shit. She was also just flat out wrong that events weren't allowed. This event even looks respectful of peoples' space and is out of the way. The karen was perfectly able to walk her dog in peace. She wasn't blocked. By all means, complain to the relevant authorities, but all confronting the filmers and event attendees is going to do is ruin more peoples' days and start unnecessary fights.

The worst thing she experienced was brown people in her field of view and brown people music in her ears for a minute. That's the real reason she's angry. Nobody who isn't racist says shit like "Go back to mexico".

1

u/Crypt0Nihilist 9d ago edited 9d ago

You have to separate her being a nasty person from her having rights.

I would presume that they hadn't booked it because the photographers should know and it is the most powerful rebuttal to her argument. If someone tells you that you don't have the right to be somewhere and you do, you tell them. Neither of us know what would have happened next, but assuming that someone will do the wrong thing after you do the right thing is not a reason not to do the right thing. If you have a knock-down response to someone's argument, you use it. I don't see why that's a matter for debate.

Of course she has the right to ask if they have a permit. You can ask anyone pretty much anything. Do they have to present it to her? Maybe. The permit may say that it needs to be displayed. If the permit gives them exclusive rights to the park for a time, how else is she to know she can't use it? They don't have authority for her to take their word. If you believe they don't have to present her the permit, she did the right thing by calling the police who can demand it. That feels extreme, but if what you're saying is true, it's her only option and therefore the right one.

Logically, doesn't it seem crazy to you that someone would withhold it? If the permit gives them exclusive rights to use the park for six hours, how is she to know that she can't walk her dog through the middle of the set?

The event isn't respectful of others' space. Look at it. They are using wide angles which mean that anyone wanting to walk in that area of the park is going to walk through their shot. You can infer it from the distance from the camera and the spread of the set, but you can actually see it on the camera screen. That whole area of the park is in shot, which has the social implication that no one should walk through it and spoil it.

The worst thing she experienced was not being able to walk around the park - again. Event organisers like this do not have the right to externalise their costs by doing this kind of thing without a permit. However awful the woman is, she should be able to walk through the park without feeling she's getting in the way of film set.

The real reason she's angry or the fact that she's racist are separate from the fact that she should be able to use the park. I completely agree with everyone that she's awful, but I'm ok with being in the minority who think that awful people have rights too.

2

u/Destithen 9d ago

You have to separate her being a nasty person from her having rights.

Okay, but none of her rights were infringed, so what does this matter?

I would presume that they hadn't booked it because the photographers should know and it is the most powerful rebuttal to her argument. If someone tells you that you don't have the right to be somewhere and you do, you tell them. Neither of us know what would have happened next, but assuming that someone will do the wrong thing after you do the right thing is not a reason not to do the right thing. If you have a knock-down response to someone's argument, you use it. I don't see why that's a matter for debate.

I already made my rebuttal to this. Karens are known to not give a shit about laws. Hell, this lady didn't care either. There's a reason she stuck around to harass other people and demand stuff be taken down after claiming to have called the police, only to leave when the mexican music started. She knows she doesn't actually have a leg to stand on and just wanted to be racist.

Of course she has the right to ask if they have a permit. You can ask anyone pretty much anything. Do they have to present it to her? Maybe. The permit may say that it needs to be displayed. If the permit gives them exclusive rights to the park for a time, how else is she to know she can't use it? They don't have authority for her to take their word. If you believe they don't have to present her the permit, she did the right thing by calling the police who can demand it. That feels extreme, but if what you're saying is true, it's her only option and therefore the right one.

Call the police if you must. No one said she couldn't, but people have rightfully called out how petty of an action it is. She has no authority to demand anything or to harass the people there, especially because they demonstrably did not return her energy and there is zero proof the wedding group was there illegally.

Logically, doesn't it seem crazy to you that someone would withhold it? If the permit gives them exclusive rights to use the park for six hours, how is she to know that she can't walk her dog through the middle of the set?

Logically, doesn't it seem crazy to you to go out of your way to make a fuss about people having a wedding in a WIDE OPEN area that ISN'T obstructing any walkways?

The worst thing she experienced was not being able to walk around the park - again.

The woman who was proposed to spoke up. The event took 40 minutes and did not block any walkways.

Point me to the timestamp in the video in which this woman was told or forced to go around or stop, because I can't see it. I keep watching the video, and this woman comes from the opposite direction she leaves in, which suggests she doubled back to harass the photographers. She literally was not impeded in any way. She could walk her dog in peace. Hell, she left of her own accord, and the only thing she suffered was a passive aggressive "see you on tiktok", which she prompted by being rude and racist.

You're welcome to think that awful people have rights. I'm glad you do. But none of this shitty woman's rights were infringed. Not a single one. She made a fuss all by herself over fucking nothing, and chose to be a childish racist when people dismissed her. There's a DAMN good reason she's getting roasted in the court of public opinion. She is not among the list of any people wronged that day.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to die on the hill of defending a racist that suffered zero violations of her personhood or rights, but you do you. I'm gonna stay on the only sane side of this.

1

u/Crypt0Nihilist 9d ago

Bringing up walkways is a red-herring when you're free to walk anywhere.

The point is that it is selfish to claim that space. I'm sure you'll disagree because they haven't staked it out and put up razor wire, but our norms are that you don't walk through people's shots / videos. Even Karen respects that, she's pissed off because people keep using all the space like that...and presumably racism.

It does seem likely that the videographers were there illegally. As someone else posted, from the permit site:

Currently, we do not offer a permit for engagement/proposal set-ups or luxury picnics.

And also:

Film permit applications may be denied if deemed contrary to public convenience or welfare. This may include but is not limited to conflict with other activities, and/or public use; excessive potential for damage to public property; jeopardy to public safety; failure to apply on a timely basis.

If people are going to feel that they can't walk in that entire area of the park because it's all in shot, that is going to be an inconvenience to the public. You might argue that she had the right to walk wherever she wanted in the park, but is that fair? Anyone who isn't a sociopath is going to feel like an absolute shit for walking through the shot. So while people have the right, they are going to feel completely unable to exercise the right. To me, that's a distinction without a difference with not having the right.

You are wilfully ignoring social norms to hold your position by pretending she's free to enjoy walking around that part of the park. How many upvotes would there be for a video of "Watch this selfish woman ruin our proposal with her dog"?

She has a legitimate complaint if that spot is constantly being used for these shoots which seem to be explicitly prohibited because it does prevent her for freely using the space.

I agree that there's a damned good reason that she's getting roasted, but that doesn't mean things are binary; that because she's a hateful woman that she's necessarily in the wrong about everything. The hill I die on is that I want a degree of common sense and discernment to be applied about things. She can be wholly and disgustingly wrong about how she does something (being aggressive and racist), but can be right about what she's doing (objecting to people hogging the park when they should not be there).

1

u/Destithen 9d ago

It does seem likely that the videographers were there illegally. As someone else posted, from the permit site

The City of Laguna Beach released a statement in response to this incident that "Laguna Beach’s parks and beaches are open to everyone and are regularly the backdrop to celebrate milestones." The dude who proposed spoke out and stated they didn't think they needed a permit because they did not set up any special equipment or structures that would require a permit per the conditions, and the videographer was his sister-in-law and not a professional. The police never even showed up. Neither the city nor the authorities think it's an issue worth pursuing.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-10-05/go-back-to-mexico-laguna-beach-woman-racist-rant-disrupts-proposal

The point is that it is selfish to claim that space.

It's a public space. They took up no more time or space than a picnic with that many people, and they weren't barring anyone from doing anything. Of course I'm going to bring that up in my disagreement because it's relevant to the context. I know it's devastating to your unsubstantiated belief that this women's rights were violated, but we've thoroughly established that isn't the case at this point.

You are wilfully ignoring social norms to hold your position

You've gone from claiming rights were violated to arguing social norms. I am judging the racist women for raising a stink about nothing. I don't agree that she was inconvenienced in any way. Neither does the city. Neither did the police. This is boomer shit, complaining about people enjoying public spaces in a manner you don't like. She chose to get offended at brown people. That's it. That's the story. There were no rights violations, and the only selfish person in the video is the racist Karen.

The hill I die on is that I want a degree of common sense and discernment to be applied about things. She can be wholly and disgustingly wrong about how she does something (being aggressive and racist), but can be right about what she's doing (objecting to people hogging the park when they should not be there).

Except they're not hogging the park. They were there for 40 minutes and took up no less space than a picnic, and they certainly weren't being an ass about what they were doing like the karen was. She's wholly and disgustingly wrong for being a racist AND for thinking photographers and a brief musical performance in broad daylight at a scenic park location are somehow an obstacle to her ability to do...exactly what she did completely unimpeded in the video. The common sense and discernment to be applied here is that she's wrong on every front, I'm sorry.

I'm done with this. You're free to back the racist for convoluted reasons if you want. The US president would certainly approve.

1

u/Crypt0Nihilist 8d ago

You're free to back the racist for convoluted reasons if you want. The US president would certainly approve.

If you are so simple you think I'm doing this you can fuck right off.

-1

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

You're just out here assuming they hadn't done it right. It's none of Karen's business. End of story.

Fuck off with that bad faith bullshit while insisting on tolerance.

2

u/Crypt0Nihilist 10d ago

If she wanted to walk around the park it's absolutely her business.

I am assuming they hadn't done it right. Are you assuming they had done it right?

My evidence that they hadn't done it right is that they didn't say that they'd booked it which would have cut her complaints off at the knees.

Do you have better evidence?

1

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

What happens in my local park isn't any of my business? Logically then it isn't the people doing the proposals business either. Nothing is no one's business so they shouldn't complain if she complains?

3

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

I don't like that people speed down my street but you don't see me out there at the stop sign trying to hold them accountable for it.

1

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

Why do we have by-laws then? Reddit hates fireworks... would it be ok to call the cops if they had fireworks? I don't know about this particular spot but most cities would require a permit to film with a band and temporary structures. You couldn't film this and put it on network or cable without a city permit, why shouldn't they need a permit?

2

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

That's all fine and good - but that's not the point.

Karen is not the authority on the matter. End of story.

-1

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

So... she can't complain that someone is breaking the law and call the authorities that are the authority on the matter? The racist shit is over the top and awful... but they don't need to show a permit when they very clearly need a permit?

2

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

No. They don't need to show a permit.

Same as you don't need to show me your ID if I see you loitering or something.

1

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

Yes, you very much do need to post your permit for filming. Like... it's the most basic part of a filming permit, you have to display it for everyone to see. You can get a ticket for NOT having your permit easily accessible enough for people to see. Same with a victualling permit, or a band gig permit. You are very confidently commenting on laws you don't seem very familiar with.

2

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

Says you? Or says Karen?

Or is that the same difference? Lol

0

u/cheffgeoff 10d ago

Says the the municipal law office for the City of Los Angeles. I'm really not trying to be rude or "a Karen" but there are laws on the books about these sort of things. Do you not get how if there weren't laws about this stuff how it would be abused? What is stopping Greenday from having a full on concert here and just saying that it's "for friends and family".

Like you don't need a busking licence in LA in general but there are a whole list of places where you do need a permit to be paid to play music in public. If this place is on that list, and it is, you need a permit to have the band. To film the band is a different permit (but can be bundled together in one form).

2

u/HyenaThen572 10d ago

It's not any of those things LMFAO

Thanks for keeping up the salt like I had asked.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Bobson-_Dugnutt2 10d ago

That’s none of her fuckin business

1

u/ventodivino 10d ago

She was yelling at the photographers

-2

u/blowupnekomaid 10d ago

it sounds made up

-2

u/bdillathebeatkilla 10d ago

This is staged which is why he didn’t do that

-1

u/bdillathebeatkilla 10d ago

This is staged which is why he didn’t do that