Moving the Goalposts—The Nature of Speculative Commentary

spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

On this website, I share insights I receive from God that readers may find helpful or encouraging. This information usually comes in the form of dreams. In addition to prophetic revelation, I provide speculative commentary about current events. Rather than being from God, these are my own thoughts on what the future may hold. My analysis of current events is based on my understanding of history and human nature. Obviously, it is influenced by my personal worldview, and in particular, my view of the future.

Revelation from God tends to be declarative in nature. We receive revelation from Him and declare what we’ve seen or heard.  Commentary on current events tends to be speculative in nature—I take an educated guess at what I think may happen. There is no objective certainty to any of this. And that causes problems for those who wish to debate objective facts.

One could argue that it is an objective fact that Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential election. He is, after all, occupying the White House. But there is evidence that suggests the election was fraudulent. That’s why Arizona is examining its election results. In time, it may be proven that Trump actually had more votes. Is it an objective fact or speculation that Biden won the election? One could argue that Biden’s presidency cannot be interfered with and that Trump must simply wait until 2024 to run again. This observation is not a statement of fact. Any statement about what will happen in the future is speculative commentary.

Speculative commentary is, by its nature, destined to be wrong. There is no degree of certainty to it. It’s an attempt to paint a picture of possible timelines and events and then change the picture as more information becomes available. It’s an assessment of a situation at a point in time. As time changes, so does the assessment. If it is to be of any use, speculative commentary must change as new information comes to light.

Anyone who has served in combat knows a battle plan remains intact only until first engagement with an enemy. Once an enemy is encountered and an offensive or defensive action is taken, a new assessment must be made of the enemy’s capabilities. Any changes in the assessment will lead to changes in the battle plan. The same is true for speculative commentary.

I don’t speak for Q, but it seems his operation involves speculative commentary. Rather than being omniscient or from the future (as some have claimed), Q provides an assessment based on currently available information. Q’s assessment would, of course, change as more information becomes available. For example, in 2018, it seemed FBI Director Chris Wray could be trusted, and that sentiment was conveyed to anons. But as more information became available, Q changed his assessment and warned anons Wray was a deep state sleeper planted in the Trump administration. Those who can’t grasp the changing nature of speculative commentary never understood what happened regarding the assessment of Wray and probably never will.

The fact that assessments change can be weaponized by a commentator’s enemies. When things don’t go as predicted, enemies seize the opportunity and point out a failed prognostication. When new information becomes available, and a new assessment is put forth, the commentator is accused of moving the goalposts. These criticisms ignore the necessity of change in speculative commentary.

Errors are inevitable, and it is the commentator’s duty to admit when they’re wrong. I anticipated the November election going differently. I hoped Mike Pence would take a different action on January 6th when the electoral college vote was counted. I miscalculated both of these events (and others). I was wrong, but I’ve learned from my mistakes, and I will continue sharing my thoughts as long as someone finds them valuable.