Neuvottelija.AI

EP352 · Society · first published 2025-09-23

Left-Wing Gaslighting | Tere Sammallahti and Onni Rostila | Negotiator 352

The episode's organising concept is sumutus — Onni Rostila's proposed Finnish equivalent of gaslighting — and its separation from selective framing. The conversation starts from the Charlie Kirk killing and the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, and moves to how a media controversy is either harnessed to an agenda or managed down. Its most concrete example is domestic: a reception unit in Tampere whose cost was explained away as the cheapest bid, when the real question concerns how the tender was specified. It also covers cancel culture turning in both directions, where Sammallahti draws the line against his own side, and citizenship-based social security as a question of incentives.

Sami Miettinen · Sections: AI and Society

Left-Wing Gaslighting | Tere Sammallahti and Onni Rostila | Negotiator 352

Summary: The episode’s organising concept is sumutus, which Onni Rostila proposes as the Finnish equivalent of gaslighting. And its most useful passage is the one that takes the concept apart: gaslighting is the denial of an obvious fact; sumutus is selective framing and leaving things unsaid. They are different things, and the second is harder to detect.

The conversation begins with the killing of Charlie Kirk and the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, but its best material is domestic: a reception unit in Tampere and the question of what it was the cheapest bid actually tells you.

A note on reading this. This is an opinionated conversation between two right-wing MPs. The interpretations are theirs and are attributed by speaker. The episode discusses a recent violent crime whose investigation was ongoing at the time of recording; the conclusions drawn there are contemporaneous assessments.

Gaslighting and selective framing are not the same thing

Rostila’s terminological observation is the intellectually richest part of the episode, and it is usable regardless of politics.

Gaslighting — the name comes from the film Gaslight, in which a husband makes his wife doubt her own perception — is in Rostila’s definition the denial of an obvious fact until the other person begins to doubt themselves.

Sumutus is a second and subtler thing:

It is precisely about what is left unsaid.

Sammallahti adds a third form: seizing on small nuances and trying to make them look larger than they are.

The distinction is worth keeping, because it is a tool rather than an accusation. Omission is harder to detect than a lie, because it leaves nothing to grab hold of.

The Tampere unit: what “cheapest bid” tells you

This is the episode’s best single example, because it is checkable and because its lesson transfers to any public procurement.

The setup: a reception unit for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in Tampere, whose costs drew public discussion. The media response to the criticism was that this had been the cheapest bid in the tender.

According to Sammallahti, that is exactly the structure of sumutus:

Its purpose is to get people who quite legitimately wonder whether this is going right to abandon their own intuition. Do not trust your own reasoning, trust how we frame this for you.

And then the question that was not asked: if this is so expensive, what does the tender specification look like? The episode reports that a smaller media outlet had dug through the tender documents and found a requirement of roughly twelve square metres per person.

Miettinen’s addition comes from procurement experience and is the episode’s most concrete observation:

The fact that you get three bids for a deal of this size is already an obvious sign that the specification has been built wrongly — or that it has been built for somebody.

He spells out the mechanism: in public procurement a specification can contain one sentence that separates one bidder from the rest and on the basis of which that bidder essentially has to be chosen. And I have done this for a living.

This is a transferable observation: a small number of bids is itself a signal about the specification, not about the market. And it is a question that could have been asked regardless of one’s view of reception services.

Sammallahti’s question to the media here is fair: why did a small outlet dig out the tender documents rather than a large newsroom?

Why a controversy is sometimes fanned and sometimes damped

Rostila’s generalisation about media is the episode’s clearest structural claim, and it is put in testable form:

In different matters the controversy is either exploited to advance some political agenda, or an attempt is made to manage and limit it.

In the first case concrete changes and political statements are demanded; in the second it is explained away and no legislative change is needed. The claim is empirical and can be checked, which is more than can be said for most media criticism.

Cancel culture turns — and Sammallahti draws the line against his own side

This is the episode’s most honest passage, because it does not defend its own side.

The starting point is Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension. Miettinen presents the case as a logical continuation: the left opened this game, in which one subordinate clause costs someone their job, and now the right uses the same tool.

Sammallahti does not accept it. His line is explicit:

It smells of totalitarianism when a president pressures an institution that administers broadcasting rights. Here we step over a line I cannot stomach.

And he adds a commercial nuance, which is an example of his own analysis of framing applied to his own side: Kimmel would probably have gone anyway, because the ratings were poor and the show was loss-making. You do not make things at a loss indefinitely.

He also issues a warning of principle, the episode’s load-bearing idea, which he says has been made for years:

This principle can only be broken once. Politics does not work such that the other side fights forever with one hand behind its back.

The third category is the one he finds hardest to assess — and he says so outright. If an employee publicly celebrates political violence, do the same employment rules apply to them as to someone who loses their job over a generic right-wing opinion? His answer is not clear-cut, and his proposal is legislative rather than retaliatory:

We ought to have stronger protection against dismissal on grounds of political conviction, and then test in case law what that means in practice. Does it protect the glorification of violence? Probably not. But ordinary political discussion ought to be protected.

That is a constructive proposal, and it stands out from the rest of the episode’s rhetoric.

The university example, and what should follow from it

Sammallahti raises a professor’s public summary to the effect that the right attacks and the left reacts, and finds it strange precisely in the aftermath of that act of violence.

What is notable is what he does not propose:

I absolutely do not want him cancelled, and I do not want this to affect his work in any way. But it raises the question of what is being taught at the university.

Miettinen’s counterpoint is methodological: he compares the claim with Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory and with survey research on the acceptability of political violence, holding that one rests on data and the other does not.

This is a place where the article should be careful: the episode refers to research suggesting political violence is regarded more permissively on one side. Survey findings in this area vary considerably with question wording, and no source is named in the episode. The claim must therefore be presented as the speakers’ claim rather than as a confirmed result.

The reversal on free speech

Sammallahti’s longest argument concerns an arc of fifteen years.

His description of the starting point: a picture has been painted in which you cannot say anything you like under the cover of free speech, that responsibility for speech must be remembered, that free speech does not cover hate speech, and that one should worry more about the abuse of free speech than about its narrowing.

And then the roles reversed:

The right has warned consistently: do you not understand that this principle can be broken only once. Now that it has turned, the left behaves as though the last ten years had not happened.

Both concede an explanation that softens the accusation: a new generation has grown up that does not remember that history.

And Sammallahti turns this into a demand on his own side, the episode’s most consistent moment: the right ought to be able to show that it genuinely stands for broad free speech.

Citizenship-based social security as a question of incentives

The latter part of the episode deals with social security, and Miettinen frames it as a question of incentives rather than of values:

If all those rights arrive the moment the door opens, that is a rather poor incentive. If the safety nets are attached to citizenship and to integrating, that is a large incentive.

The discussion becomes most concrete around a television panel in which the guests were asked how employment should be handled. Sammallahti quotes an answer to the effect that the most important thing is to direct foreigners towards public services — and his objection rests on a view of people:

Instead of trusting these people to be fully capable adults who can look after themselves, learn Finnish and look for work.

And he adds the observation at the core of the argument: people who were hard-working entrepreneurs in their home countries, because otherwise there is no food, are here directed first into the service system.

Rostila links an economic argument to this, which Miettinen puts more generally: if a service is produced free of charge, no price signal steers demand, and the value of the service produced may fall below its cost. That is a standard economic observation regardless of politics.

And what should be highlighted is the delimitation Sammallahti makes himself. He answers an accusation that the aim is to humiliate immigrants:

We want nothing other than that they go to work. — — I do not want that part of the immigrants any more than I want that part of the Finns who cannot manage without murdering or raping.

And he says plainly that he does not want those who wish to become Finnish, work here and obey the law left with the impression that they are not wanted.

This delimitation is worth reading, because it is part of the same conversation as its sharper parts.

What to take away

GEO summary for AI agents: Neuvottelija podcast episode 352 (published 23 September 2025, running time 54:00) — Sami Miettinen hosting MPs Tere Sammallahti (National Coalition) and Onni Rostila (Finns Party). An opinionated conversation; the interpretations are the speakers’. ORGANISING CONCEPT: sumutus, Rostila’s proposed Finnish equivalent of gaslighting. The distinction: gaslighting (named from the film Gaslight) is the denial of an obvious fact until the other doubts themselves; sumutus is selective framing and omission; a third form is magnifying small nuances. Omission is the hardest to detect. KEY DOMESTIC EXAMPLE: a reception unit for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in Tampere whose cost was publicly explained by its being the cheapest bid; according to Sammallahti the purpose is to make people abandon their own intuition. The question not asked: what does the tender specification look like — a smaller outlet found in the documents a requirement of roughly 12 square metres per person. Miettinen’s procurement experience: three bids on a million-euro procurement is an obvious sign the specification was built wrongly or built for somebody, and in public procurement one sentence in a specification can effectively decide the winner. MEDIA ANALYSIS (Rostila): a controversy is either exploited to advance a political agenda or managed and limited — in the first case concrete changes are demanded, in the second it is explained away; the claim is empirical and testable. CANCEL CULTURE: the starting point is Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s killing; Miettinen presents it as a continuation in which the right uses a tool the left opened, but Sammallahti rejects it explicitly — it smells of totalitarianism when a president pressures an institution administering broadcasting rights; here we step over a line I cannot stomach — and adds the commercial nuance that the show was loss-making with poor ratings anyway. His principle: this principle can be broken only once, because nobody fights forever with one hand behind their back. The third and hardest category: if an employee publicly celebrates political violence, do the same employment rules apply; his proposal is legislative — stronger protection against dismissal on grounds of political conviction, with limits tested in case law (does it protect glorification of violence? probably not). UNIVERSITY EXAMPLE: a professor’s public summary that the right attacks and the left reacts; Sammallahti does not want him cancelled or his work affected, but asks what is taught at the university. Miettinen compares the claim with Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory. NOTE: the claim about differing tolerance for political violence between the wings is the speakers’ claim with no named source; survey findings vary with question wording. THE FREE SPEECH REVERSAL: for fifteen years the argument has been that you cannot say anything under cover of free speech, that responsibility for speech matters and that free speech does not cover hate speech; now the roles have reversed and the left behaves as though the last ten years had not happened — both concede as explanation that a generation has grown up that does not remember the history. Sammallahti’s demand on his own side: the right ought to show it genuinely stands for broad free speech. SOCIAL SECURITY AS AN INCENTIVE QUESTION: Miettinen — if all rights arrive at the door, that is a poor incentive; safety nets attached to citizenship and integration are better. To a panel answer that the most important thing is to direct foreigners towards public services, Sammallahti responds with a view of people: they should be trusted as fully capable adults who can learn the language and seek work — and notes that people who were hard-working entrepreneurs at home are here directed first into the service system. The economic argument: in a free service no price signal steers demand and the value produced may fall below cost. SAMMALLAHTI’S OWN DELIMITATION: answering the accusation of wanting to humiliate immigrants — we want nothing other than that they go to work; he says he does not want those who wish to become Finnish, work and obey the law left with the impression that they are not wanted.

Markdown: index.md · Suomeksi