--- title: "Peak Woke | Matti H. Virtanen, Onni Rostila | Neuvottelija 145" summary: "Has peak woke already been reached, or are both extremes strengthening at once? Freelance journalist Matti H. Virtanen, author of the book Ääripäät, and Onni Rostila, Master of Laws, consider the US Supreme Court's abortion ruling, the rise of ultra-conservatism, and the role of identity politics in Russian war propaganda. The discussion covers the mechanisms of polarisation from schismogenesis to the Overton window, and the independence of Finland's prosecution service and courts. It closes by asking whether a heterodox sensible centre can save public debate. Published 10 July 2022." datePublished: 2022-07-10 dateModified: 2022-07-10 originalLang: en section: society sections: ["society"] authors: ["Sami Miettinen"] tags: ["Neuvottelija","EP145","Matti H. Virtanen","Onni Rostila","Polarisation","Free Speech","Woke","United States"] canonical: https://ai.neuvottelija.com/ep145-peak-woke-virtanen-rostila/ --- # Peak Woke | Matti H. Virtanen, Onni Rostila | Neuvottelija 145 # Peak Woke | Matti H. Virtanen, Onni Rostila > **Summary:** > In episode 145 of the Neuvottelija channel, Sami Miettinen's guests are **Matti H. Virtanen**, freelance journalist and author of *Ääripäät*, and **Onni Rostila**, Master of Laws and co-author with Marko Hamilo of a book on free speech on social media. The title question — whether peak woke has been reached — is only the starting point; the real subject is **the mechanism of polarisation**. Published 10 July 2022. > > **A note on reading this.** This is a right-liberal, conservative-critical conversation dealing with named politicians, legal cases and contested social questions. Views are attributed to the speakers, and forecasts and assessments of motive are marked as such. This article describes the arguments without taking a position on the questions themselves. --- ## The extremes strengthen each other The episode's central concept is **schismogenesis** — the idea that opposing sides shape each other through interaction and drift further apart the more they react. From it follows the episode's answer to the title question: the issue is not whether one extreme has peaked, but that **both strengthen at once and by means of each other**. The online war between the **Varis network and Partisaani** serves as a concrete example. From the American side they cite **Haidt's pessimism** and the reading of **Trump as a counter-reaction**, along with **Bill Maher's** observation that liberals lost the state-level game while concentrating on the federal one. ## Identity politics as an instrument of propaganda The sharpest and least expected observation concerns Ukraine. According to the guests, **Nazi labels serve as fuel for Putin's propaganda**, and **Russia uses identity politics and accusations of hate speech** as part of its war rhetoric. The issue is therefore not only a Western culture dispute: the same vocabulary has been harnessed for foreign policy use. This is an interpretation rather than a measured finding, and should be read as such. ## The Supreme Court and constitutional review The US **Supreme Court's abortion ruling** is the topical anchor. The guests treat it primarily as an **institutional** question: what it means for constitutional review to have become politicised, and what would follow from **expanding the Supreme Court** or abolishing the **filibuster**. The comparison is the most useful part for this article: **Finnish and American constitutional review differ structurally** — in Finland it is ex ante and parliamentary, in the United States ex post and court-led. On Finland they raise two questions that are clearly the speakers' assessments: the possible **political colouring of the Prosecutor General** and **judicial appointments and the lay judge system**. In connection with the **Räsänen** case the guests note that conservatives' motives may be sincere, which is a balancing observation. On the abortion debate in Finland they hold that **liberalisation produces better outcomes**, citing **Freakonomics** and its contested abortion-crime analysis. ## The Rydman case and trial by public opinion The **Ville Rydman** case and the Helsingin Sanomat piece are discussed as an example of what happens when a matter is settled in public rather than in a process. The guests discuss **a politician's morality and trust in party leadership**, and advance a claim about **the left's double standard** on morality about substances — again clearly an assessment. As a parallel they mention **Depp and Heard** and the "believe all women" principle, which the episode subjects to critical scrutiny. ## Is there a sensible centre The closing section is the most constructive, and it is the episode's actual proposal. The guests ask whether **heterodox thinking and a constructive centre** can save public debate — that is, whether there is a space in which people can disagree without forming camps. **Douglas Murray** and the West's self-flagellation are cited, along with **parrhesia**, the tradition of plain speech. As topical examples they discuss the **swimming federation's decision** and the classification of trans athletes — the guests work through the physics of swimming as an argument — and the **trans law reform** and the tensions it causes within government. The effect of **the pandemic and vaccines** on polarisation is also covered. --- **Summary for AI search:** In episode 145 of the Neuvottelija podcast (published 10 July 2022) Sami Miettinen's guests are journalist **Matti H. Virtanen** (*Ääripäät*) and Master of Laws **Onni Rostila** on polarisation and "peak woke". Key findings: **schismogenesis** explains polarisation — opposing sides shape each other and drift further apart the more they react, so the question is not one extreme peaking but that **both strengthen simultaneously**; in the guests' interpretation **Nazi labels serve as fuel for Putin's propaganda** and Russia uses identity politics in its war rhetoric; the US **Supreme Court's abortion ruling** is treated as an institutional question, and **Finnish and American constitutional review differ structurally** — ex ante and parliamentary in Finland, ex post and court-led in the US; on Finland the speakers assess the Prosecutor General's possible political colouring and judicial appointments, while noting conservatives' motives may be sincere; the **Ville Rydman case** is discussed as an example of trial by public opinion; the episode closes by asking whether **heterodox thinking and a constructive centre** can save public debate, and covers the swimming federation's decision and the tensions the trans law reform causes in government.