Luke Ford

The New York Times reports:

For many Angelenos, the road signs that have been posted in the Silver Lake neighborhood over the last two decades forbidding U-turns from midnight to 6 a.m. were just another example of the city’s seemingly arbitrary and extremely specific traffic regulations.

But to longtime members of the area’s L.G.B.T.Q. community, they were something more: vestiges of a painful not-so-distant past when Los Angeles’s queer spaces were targeted rather than celebrated.

After two years of planning, the last of the signs on Griffith Park Boulevard were removed last week. The occasion was marked with coffee, guava and cheese pastries and performances by two local drag queens.

The “No U-turn” signs were posted in 1997 in response to residents’ complaints that the boulevard had become a hot spot for gay men looking for sex partners. There were nine of the signs on Griffith Park Boulevard, as well as “No Cruising” signs on nearby Hyperion Avenue. (Cruising in Los Angeles has long had multiple meanings.)

The signs soon prompted complaints about discriminatory and homophobic police crackdowns in the area. Some gay men accused undercover vice officers of entrapment.

ChatGPT says: Alliance Theory says the sanitization is the story.

Start with the core conflict. Residents do not want strangers soliciting sex on their block. That preference cuts across ideology, class, and sexuality. It is ordinary and widespread. But it collides with an elite moral coalition that treats public order enforcement touching sex as suspect by default.

Alliance Theory predicts what happens next. The concrete interest gets laundered into abstraction. Noise. Traffic flow. Historical trauma. Symbolic discrimination. The actual behavior people object to disappears from the narrative because naming it would align the speaker with the wrong coalition.

So “No Cruising” signs get re-described as traffic management tools that secretly targeted LGBTQ people. That is not false, but it is incomplete. The missing piece is that cruising meant repeated approaches by strangers seeking sex in residential space. Saying that plainly risks triggering the stigma of being anti-gay or anti-sexual freedom. Newsrooms avoid that risk.

Why does this framing dominate now. Because alliance power has shifted. In the 1970s and 1990s, city governments balanced residents against police and vice economies. Today, elite cultural institutions align reflexively with sexual identity coalitions. That makes enforcement narratives illegitimate even when behavior is intrusive or unwanted.

Alliance Theory also explains the temporal asymmetry. The signs stay up for decades because no organized elite coalition prioritizes removal. Once activists translate the sign into a moral symbol of past oppression, removal becomes a loyalty signal. Taking the sign down says who the city stands with now. The ceremony, the drag queens, the Pride timing are alliance rituals.

Why the coverage feels dishonest to ordinary readers. Because their lived preference is absent. People do not want strangers having sex, or soliciting sex, on their street at night. That preference is treated as unsayable. Instead, it is re-coded as cover for animus. Alliance Theory says this happens when an interest lacks elite sponsors.

Finally, the traffic sign itself. Infrastructure is a low-visibility enforcement tool that lets elites manage conflict without openly choosing sides. That is why these signs proliferated. They allowed cities to suppress behavior without saying what behavior they were suppressing. Alliance Theory says such tools persist until one coalition gains the power to force symbolic clarity.

The news is sanitized because naming the real conflict would fracture elite alliances. The public senses the omission because the behavior did not vanish. Only the language did.

Alliance Theory predicts that elites fight hardest at the point where definition hardens into enforcement. Tolerance is cheap. Equality is expensive. Tolerance allows dissenters to remain inside the coalition as second-order members. Equality collapses that ambiguity. Once equality is declared, dissent is no longer a difference of opinion but a threat to coalition integrity. That is why Paul is right that losing means more than being wrong. It means being peeled away from networks, credentials, careers, and eventually legal standing.

The “peeling” dynamic he describes is classic alliance pressure. Individuals are not expelled all at once. First they are socially isolated. Then professionally sidelined. Then institutionally excluded. Each step raises the cost of resistance for those still inside. Alliance Theory predicts this because coalitions survive by making defection visibly costly and loyalty visibly rewarding.

Elite institutions matter here because they are the alliance’s enforcement organs. Universities, media, professions, law, and philanthropy are not neutral arenas. They are sorting machines. Once an issue is elevated to reality-defining status, these institutions coordinate implicitly. No conspiracy is needed. Everyone understands the direction of travel. Careers self-correct.

Paul’s observation about the state is the end stage. When cultural definition is settled, law follows. At that point the coalition no longer needs persuasion. It has legitimacy. Alliance Theory says this is why late dissenters are punished more harshly than early opponents. Early on, dissent tests boundaries. Late dissent challenges authority itself.

This also explains why elite conflicts feel existential and moralized. They are not really about policy outcomes. They are about coalition control. Whoever defines reality controls who is respectable, employable, promotable, and protected.

So Alliance Theory reads Paul’s passage as accurate but incomplete. The fight is not just over ideas. It is over alliance dominance. Ideas are the weapon. Institutions are the terrain. Social death is the sanction.

Gemini says: The tension between public order and the history of policing often disappears in modern news reporting because “sanitization” serves a specific rhetorical purpose. News outlets frequently strip away the visceral reality of public sex or neighborhood disorder to focus on the technicalities of civil rights and urban planning. This shift moves the conversation from a messy conflict over behavior to a cleaner debate about discriminatory infrastructure. Journalists often favor this approach because it avoids the graphic nature of the complaints while allowing them to frame the story within a modern progress narrative.

The residents of Rittenhouse Square and Silver Lake faced a reality that traffic signs rarely capture. When people live in a neighborhood where the “Merry-Go-Round” or cruising circuits become active, the conflict involves noise, loss of privacy, and the transformation of a residential street into a marketplace for anonymous encounters. These residents often use neutral language like “traffic congestion” or “noise complaints” as a social maneuver. It allows them to advocate for their quality of life without appearing intolerant, even if the underlying target is a specific group of people.

Modern coverage tends to focus on the removal of these signs as a victory for L.G.B.T.Q. visibility, but it often glosses over why the signs existed in the first place. By focusing on the “policing of bodies,” the news can ignore the localized friction that occurs when public and private boundaries blur. This creates a disconnect between the historical record of neighborhood grievances and the contemporary celebration of “inclusive” streets. The reality of people having sex on a street is a difficult topic for a standard news desk to handle without alienating readers or appearing biased, so they pivot to the “unremarkable” specificity of a left-turn ban.

The endurance of the sign on Delancey Street suggests that once these regulations become part of the city’s physical layout, they lose their original charge for many people. New residents may see a midnight-to-5 a.m. restriction and assume it relates to simple safety or parking management. The sanitization occurs not just in the news, but in the collective memory of the city itself. The political intent remains hidden in plain sight, and the “sanitized” version of the story becomes the only one that survives the transition from a local neighborhood dispute to a city-wide historical artifact.

Darel E. Paul wrote in his 2018 book From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage: “The fight is over nothing less than who shall have the power to define reality. All the combatants know as much. No wonder they fight so hard. To lose is not just to be consigned to the wrong side of history. It is to have the weight of the dominant culture pressed firmly against you, peeling away members and undermining the ability and willingness of the remainder to resist. It is to be denied access to elite institutions and networks, and to all the material and social benefits they confer. It is even to have the force of law and thus ultimately the power of the state used against you.”

ChatGPT says: Alliance Theory reads Paul’s passage as a clean description of how moral conflicts are really fought.

The fight is not over discrete policies or private behaviors. It is over alliance control of reality definition. Whoever defines what is normal, harmful, or beyond debate decides which coalitions are legitimate and which are radioactive.

When Paul says “who shall have the power to define reality,” Alliance Theory hears this. Moral language is a sorting mechanism. It tells people which side they are on and which side they must abandon if they want to remain in good standing. Once a definition hardens, facts stop mattering. What matters is whether you affirm the frame.

“Peeling away members” is the key phrase. Alliance Theory predicts that once elite institutions converge on a moral frame, dissent becomes costly even for partial insiders. People defect not because they are persuaded, but because they are isolated. Social pressure does the work. Resistance becomes irrational at the individual level even if it remains popular at the mass level.

“Denied access to elite institutions and networks” is not a side effect. It is the enforcement mechanism. Alliances control jobs, credentials, platforms, publishing, and prestige. Losing the definitional fight means your people are filtered out over time. This is why these conflicts feel existential. They are.

“The force of law” comes last, not first. Alliance Theory stresses sequencing. Cultural victory precedes legal victory. Once reality is defined, law simply ratifies what elite networks already treat as settled. Legal coercion feels shocking to the losing side because they experienced the earlier stages as social and cultural, not as warfare.

Why the intensity. Because compromise is impossible. You cannot partially lose the power to define reality. Either your description of the world is authoritative or it is pathologized. That is why moderation collapses and why rhetorical escalation is rational.

Paul’s insight also explains elite calm and grassroots panic. Elites experience these shifts as moral progress. Outsiders experience them as sudden civilizational defeat. Both are correct within their alliance positions.

Alliance Theory bottom line. This was never about tolerance versus intolerance. It was about which coalition gets to say what words mean, what institutions reward, and which people must adapt or disappear socially. Once you see that, the ferocity, the speed, and the asymmetry all make sense.

Gemini says: The quote from Darel E. Paul captures the mechanism of “status closure” that defines how elite culture reshapes social norms. When a news story frames a “No Cruising” sign as a relic of bigotry rather than a response to neighborhood disorder, it exercises the power to define reality. This sanitization is a tool of the dominant culture to ensure that certain perspectives—specifically those of the “deplorable” or the non-elite resident—are pushed to the margins. By removing the graphic details of why residents wanted the signs, the media transforms a localized dispute over public conduct into a high-level moral victory for equality.

This process functions as a form of social gatekeeping. As Paul notes, losing this cultural fight means having the weight of the state and elite institutions pressed against you. In the case of the Delancey Street sign, the “sanitized” news coverage signals which side the dominant culture has chosen. If the news reported on the actual nature of the cruising—the public sex and the disruption of domestic life—it might validate the residents’ original desire for the signs. Instead, by focusing on the “policeman’s bias,” the coverage undermines the legitimacy of those who still want quiet, orderly streets.

The shift from tolerance to equality necessitates this rewriting of history. In the past, society might have tolerated the “Merry-Go-Round” as long as it stayed in the shadows, while also tolerating the neighborhood’s right to block it off. However, the new “equality” regime requires that the historical resistance to cruising be reframed as an act of pure animus. This strips the old neighborhood guard of their moral standing. They are no longer people protecting their homes; they are historical villains whose “No Left Turn” signs are now artifacts of a “painful past.”

Once an elite institution like the New York Times or a City Council defines the reality of these signs, the “force of law” and the “power of the state” follow. In Los Angeles, the removal was not just a physical act but a ceremony involving drag queens and local officials, turning a traffic department work order into a state-sanctioned moral statement. This is exactly what Paul describes: the material and social benefits of the city are now fully aligned with the groups that were once policed. To disagree with the removal is to find oneself on the “wrong side of history,” denied the ability to even frame your objection as a matter of simple public order.

Stephen Park Turner’s work on tacit knowledge provides a sharp lens for viewing this friction. For Turner, a community operates on a bedrock of shared, unarticulated understandings that allow people to navigate their daily lives. The residents of Delancey Street in 1974 likely relied on a form of tacit knowledge to manage their neighborhood. They understood the informal boundaries of the “Merry-Go-Round,” and they likely used the left-turn sign as a crude, formal tool to shore up those informal norms. When news coverage sanitizes the story today, it replaces that complex local reality with a formal “cognitive authority.”

The media and the state act as the new experts who define the meaning of the past. Turner argues that cognitive authority is often a political claim disguised as neutral expertise. By framing the signs solely as instruments of LGBTQ+ profiling, the modern elite narrative overrides the residents’ original tacit justifications—their desire for quiet streets or the protection of their domestic space. This process delegitimizes the local experience. The “sanitized” news coverage isn’t just a choice of tone. It is an assertion that the local, uncodified feelings of a 1970s neighborhood have no standing against the formal, universal values of the current administrative class.

This creates a situation where the state uses its power to “correct” history. In Turner’s framework, once a practice like cruising moves from a “social fact” that the community manages to a “political right” that the state protects, the old community norms are rendered obsolete. The ceremony in Los Angeles demonstrates this perfectly. The removal of a piece of metal—a traffic sign—becomes a ritual of the state asserting its power to define what is “real” and what is “right.” The original neighborhood concerns are not just ignored; they are written out of the narrative entirely because they do not fit the formal logic of the new authority.

The weight of the dominant culture that Darel E. Paul describes is exactly what Turner sees in the triumph of explicit rules over tacit skill. When the news strip-mines a story for its progress narrative, it effectively “peels away” the ability of people to argue for public order on their own terms. If you cannot mention the public sex or the disruption of the street without being labeled a bigot, your ability to resist the removal of the sign vanishes. The elite mandate becomes the only reality permitted in the public square, and the messy, visceral history of the street is replaced by a clean, state-approved version of events.

In The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge and Prepositions, Stephen Turner examines how “practices” are often local, unsaid, and impossible to fully capture in writing. He argues that when the state or elite institutions step in to formalize these practices, they usually destroy the community’s own “cognitive authority.” In the case of the Delancey Street sign, the neighborhood practiced a form of self-regulation. They used the sign as a proxy for a shared understanding of what their street should be. By sanitizing the history today, elite institutions—media and city government—strip the original residents of their status as legitimate observers of their own lives.

This leads to what Turner calls the “displacement of the local.” When the news reports on these signs, they use the language of sociology and human rights rather than the language of the street. They replace the visceral “front lawn” reality you mentioned with abstract concepts like “discriminatory infrastructure.” This displacement ensures that the “power to define reality” rests only with those who have mastered the formal jargon of the academy or the newsroom. The person who just wants strangers to stop having sex on their street is silenced because they lack the “authorized” language to compete with the progress narrative.

The result is a totalizing effect where the state uses its “expert” status to delegitimize any dissent. Turner notes that once an elite group defines a specific truth, they use it to “close” the status of anyone who disagrees. If the modern reality is that “no cruising” signs are exclusively tools of hate, then the resident who points out the public disorder is not just expressing a preference; they are making a factual error in the eyes of the state. This is the “weight of the dominant culture” Paul describes. It makes the truth of the ordinary resident invisible by labeling it as mere prejudice or an “excuse.”

This mechanism also explains why the signs in Los Angeles came down with such ceremony while the Philadelphia sign remains a “relic.” In LA, the elite consensus fully consolidated, turning the removal into a state-sponsored performance of its own moral authority. In Philadelphia, the “Streets Department” claims to have no records, which is a form of bureaucratic silence that keeps the old tacit reality in a state of limbo. The moment the Philadelphia elite decide to “define the reality” of Delancey Street, that sign will likely come down with the same guava pastries and drag performances seen in Silver Lake, further erasing the localized, “unsanitized” history of the neighborhood.

In his analysis of “liberal democracy” and the role of the expert, Turner argues that elite expertise functions as a way to “depoliticize” what are actually deep social conflicts. When a city council or a major news outlet addresses the cruising signs, they don’t treat it as a genuine disagreement between two groups with competing interests. Instead, they treat it as a technical or moral error that “expertise” has finally corrected. By labeling the signs as “discriminatory,” they move the issue out of the realm of local political negotiation—where residents might argue for their right to privacy and order—and into a realm where only “experts” on civil rights and urban planning have a say.

This suppresses local conflict by making one side’s arguments literally unspeakable in polite society. Turner points out that expertise creates a “closed” system of logic. If the expert defines the signs as purely symbolic of hate, then the resident’s complaint about public sex is dismissed as a “secondary rationalization.” The expert claims to know the resident’s “true” (bigoted) motive better than the resident does. This is the ultimate exercise of power: the ability to tell a community that their own stated reasons for their actions are a lie.

Furthermore, Turner discusses how this “rule of experts” relies on the destruction of local “authority.” In a traditional neighborhood, a long-time resident might have the social standing to say, “This behavior is unacceptable on our street.” But in the modern elite framework, that personal authority is replaced by “procedural authority.” The news coverage reflects this by ignoring the residents’ voices and focusing on the statements of “City Council members,” “Streets Departments,” and “PhD students.” These figures represent the formal state machinery that Turner warns is used to manage and eventually suppress the “messy” political realities of the working and middle classes.

This suppression leads to the “sanitization” you noted. The experts cannot allow the visceral details of the conflict to remain in the narrative because those details provide a “counter-logic” that might make the residents’ actions seem reasonable. If the public knows that the “Merry-Go-Round” involved constant noise and public indecency, the expert’s claim that the signs were only about hate begins to crumble. Therefore, the “reality” must be sanitized to protect the expert’s authority. The elite “define reality” by carefully selecting which facts are allowed to survive the editing process, ensuring the state’s eventual intervention appears both necessary and moral.

In Turner’s framework, particularly in Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts, he identifies a shift where the “authority of the expert” is used to colonize and eventually dissolve the “authority of the community.” When you observe the sanitization of news regarding the cruising signs, you see a specific form of what Turner calls epistemic inequality. The expert—the sociologist, the city official, or the journalist—claims a superior way of knowing the “reality” of the street. They treat the residents’ local knowledge as a primitive or biased obstacle that needs to be “managed” by more enlightened, formal rules.

Turner argues that community norms are built on tacit knowledge, which is the unwritten skill of living together. The residents of Delancey Street in 1974 didn’t necessarily need a PhD to understand that their street was being used in a way that disrupted their lives; they experienced it viscerally. However, as Turner notes, the state and elite institutions increasingly view such local autonomy as dangerous or irrational. To “fix” the problem, they replace local self-regulation with “procedural authority.” The news sanitizes the details because if the public were allowed to see the “unsanitized” reality—the actual conflict over public sex and disorder—the elite’s expert-driven “progress narrative” would lose its cognitive authority.

This leads to a process where the state effectively “redescribes” local facts to fit a preferred political outcome. If a resident says, “I don’t want strangers having sex on my street,” the expert redescribes this as “anxiety over shifting demographic norms” or “a legacy of discriminatory spatial control.” This redescription, according to Turner, is a tool to take ground away from the community. It forces the resident to argue on the expert’s terms. If you cannot speak the language of “equity” or “urban sociology,” your lived experience is discarded as mere “disinformation” or “prejudice.” The “force of law” mentioned by Darel E. Paul is then used to codify the expert’s redescription into reality, such as the ceremonial removal of signs in Silver Lake.

Ultimately, Turner warns that this reliance on experts transforms liberal democracy from a “government by discussion among the equally informed” into a “contestation over expertise itself.” In the sanitized news coverage, there is no longer a discussion between neighbors about how to live together. There is only a victory lap for the experts who have successfully used the power of the state to overwrite local memory. The residents who original requested the signs are not just ignored; they are effectively excommunicated from the “rational” public square because their tacit concerns were never allowed to be translated into the formal, sanitized record.