What do you guys think is a good rating to start grinding openings?

I'm not really sure, because on one hand, I want to learn it, but on the other hand, I'm just lazy. Please tell me what you think.

You do need to learn openings at any rating below grandmaster.
You can play just by applying general principles: develop pieces into play and control the center.
Play the same moves all the time so you accumulate experience.

Just throw darts because you’ll probably get over a dozen answers.

Unfortunately the chess.com community is divided on many things and openings are one of them.

#3
Line of division: the lower the rating, the more obsessed with openings.

I think so about 1700-1800 range. But, above 2000-2300 is very important/

Unfortunately I still haven't learned any openings 

FFS, would you just stop posting on chess.com?

Thanks.

Ideally you don't "grind" anything. Try to level up all your skills more evenly. For example spend a month or two on openings, then move on to something else. Ideally you work on the things that are causing you to lose games, or in general aspects of chess you're unsure about.

And as a practical matter, work on things that interest you. If you're lazy about openings, fine, study something you're motivated to learn instead. There are many different ways to be ____ rating. You're not required to study openings until you're losing all your games before move 15

#8

"spend a month or two on openings" ++ That is bad advice. That is 1-2 months wasted.

"you work on the things that are causing you to lose games" ++ Yes, and it is not openings.

"If you're lazy about openings, fine" ++ Being lazy on openings is even better.

"You're not required to study openings until you're losing all your games before move 15"
++ If you lose all your games before move 15, then there is something else wrong and study of openings will not help you. If you need opening theory to not lose before move 15, then how will you avoid losing before move 16 or 17?

#11
'I played according to my ideas of general development and after some ten or twelve moves the Doctor began to think. He took a very long time to make his next move. It seems that up to this point I had been making the best moves of the opening according to the recognized authorities, but that then I had made a move not in the books, with the result that instead of getting the best of the game the Doctor was getting the worst of it. This prompted the comment from him after the game that not only did I know the books thoroughly but that I had improved on them. The fact was that I did not know a single book on the openings at the time but I had merely played on general lines according to the same principles I am expounding in this book.'
- Capablanca on his game against Dr. Tarrasch, San Sebastian 1911

1900+ chess.com blitz rating . In my opinion and my own personal experiences, that's where you can't survive anymore without "good" knowledge of openings. 

From that point on you need to learn more and more once you progress and it never stops from that point basically.

Meh, I've done the same in tournaments. Happens all the time.

Not the remarks from the opponent "you've improved on them" but playing theory without realizing it.

For example in one tournament years ago the most I knew about the vienna gambit was to play 3...d5 and yet I stayed in book for 10+ moves and got a better position simply by playing rationally (me 1900 vs 2100).

#16
Conclusion:
You do need to learn openings at any rating below grandmaster.
You can play just by applying general principles: develop pieces into play and control the center.
Capablanca became world champion without opening theory, but that is no longer possible now.

This is, of course, untrue.

The reason no one agrees with you is because the things you say are stupid.

And that's not me trying to be mean or funny, that's the cold hard truth.