For better or worse, I glimpsed an exchange earlier today about political considerations when traveling, and although I couldn't respond at the time, I found it thought-provoking. The exchange in question has since been moderated, but maybe the issues are worth discussing?

FWIW, I think it's perfectly reasonable to take political issues into consideration when making a decision about whether to travel somewhere or not. And I, personally, don't find mention of such issues offensive -- assuming, of course, they are done without the assumption that one must or should share one's political beliefs. I can even see (but am not yet willing to make) the argument that ALL decisions are fundamentally political, whether explicitly or implicitly, and so could see an argument that the problem would be in trying to artificially remove all consideration of politics from discussion of possible destinations.

I'm interesting in learning more about the various arguments for and against considering, or mentioning, political issues on a forum about travel. So please, share your thoughts!

The trouble with discussing politics on the internet, and especially on anonymous forums, is that it almost always generates more heat than light. The now-deleted "discussion" about Hungary was certainly in that category. I also wonder how much information is actually exchanged. How many posters on Fodors are really unaware of the problematic behavior of the PTB in Hungary, Israel, China, India, Myanmar etc.?

(BTW, did you know that "the powers that be" comes from the first direct translation of the Bible into English, by Tyndale in the early 1500s? He was burned at the stake for heresy before he finished it.)

I must admit that nothing I've read so far convinces me that this topic is one about which Fodorites can engage constructively. :( But I could be wrong!

@ crellston: I'm intrigued that comments about political views have, occasionally, prompted a change in your perspectives. I wonder if you could say something about the circumstances: Did someone provide information you hadn't known? Provide a perspective that led you to reassess information you already had? Raise an issue of safety or ethics or perception that you hadn't already considered? I'm not seeking details (unless you choose to provide them) -- just a better sense of what made the difference.

@ thursdaysd: I fear you are right about the heat. And BTW, I did not know that factoid about the PTB -- fascinating!

@ BDKR: I don't disagree that there is an important distinction to be made between fact and opinion -- but people have all sorts of opinions about things that matter to travel, opinions about things that affect travel decisions. And IME, most Fodorites respect those different opinions -- except, perhaps, when it comes to politics. For example, some people express an opinion that beach time is critical to a good vacation; others may agree or disagree, but they don't challenge the right of the OP to hold that opinion. Similarly, some people express an opinion that guided tours are absolutely necessary to understand a place; others may agree or disagree, but they don't tell the person to never ever express that opinion. As I see it, there are all sorts of political opinions (not to mention facts) that influence people's travel decisions, and in my ideal world, people would feel free to discuss those opinions and how they are impacting travel decisions on a travel forum without facing criticism for either having or expressing those opinions. JMO. And IMO, there are people for whom the freedom of the press or the holding of political prisoners or whatever is an important travel consideration, and I think it's to their credit that they weigh such factors in their decisions. Whether I agree or not simply isn't the point. IMO.

@ Macross. Great example of how political facts affect travel! And it reminds me of something that happened here on Fodor's when the travel ban on Cuba was first lifted. I remember reading a few very interesting discussions of the ethics of traveling to Cuba, once it became possible. And I also remember a brutally vicious attack by one or more Fodorite(s) on another, just because that attacker(s) disagreed with the other's opinion. IIRC, most of those later posts were deleted -- as was appropriate! I was deeply saddened by that attack. That difference between respectful discussion and personal attack was probably part of what made me take note of the recent (and deleted) discussion (which, thankfully, didn't reach the same level of rancor -- at least from what I saw).

@ suze: The original posts are irrelevant to my question. As already noted, I simply mentioned them to acknowledge the source of my curiosity. The fact is that there are people who make decisions about where to go, or perhaps particularly where NOT to go, based on opinions about political considerations. My question -- which it seems I did not word very clearly -- is more about whether those considerations can be aired in a constructive and respectful way on a travel forum -- and of course, I meant THIS forum.

Thanks one and all for sharing your reactions!

@ crellston: I can't thank you enough for your post -- you've provided the kind of comments that I had so hoped to generate with my question!

Your post illustrates, IMO, the fundamental principle that discussing the issues -- including the political issues -- can be informative and respectful and helpful. :yay: I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with any particular statement you make (whether I agree is irrelevant to my question with this thread, and I don't want to risk turning the specifics into the issue), but you are providing clear examples of the kinds of political issues that could be worth considering when planning a trip and the ways in which comments from fellow travelers can help inform one's travel decisions.

And thank you, too, for admitting your learning experience. I know it can be very hard, but I wish we were all willing to grow and to share the benefits of difficult lessons with others.

I think you've hit a nail on its head when pointing out the many shades of gray between fact and opinion. If only it weren't so difficult! I am grateful when someone provides compelling evidence to contradict what turns out to be a mistaken assertion of fact, but short of clear confirmation or disproof, it seems to me that "opinion" and "fact" are more difficult to distinguish than might, in an ideal world, be the case.

As you suggest with your comments about distributing our tourism dollars off-the-beaten trail, it's rarely clear (to me, at least) that there is a single "right" way to address fundamentally political issues, even if there is agreement about the issues (which there rarely is). IMO, these issues are worthy of discussion and debate in part because there are various ways -- various ethical ways -- to respond, so it becomes a matter of personal conscience to decide which "answer" best matches one's own individual sense of what is right or moral or ethical. For me, honest discussion of the varying political (and other) considerations (and their ramifications, and the various ways of responding) can be extraordinarily helpful as I weigh arguments in pursuit of a decision that works for me, recognizing that ethical people can and often do end up with different decisions because of even small differences in their individual hierarchies of guiding principles.

And like you, I reserve the right to decide, in the end, on self-interest -- but I like to do so with "eyes wide open" to the extent possible.

Maybe. Maybe not. That argument -- that opinion -- would seem to assume that choosing to visit despite one's opposition to a country's politics wouldn't hurt oneself -- and I would think that many people believe that acting in ways that contradict one's personal values is harmful to oneself. Obviously, not all personal beliefs are held dearly enough for the effect to be self-injury, but that's why it's tricky, isn't it? And maybe going despite one's own personal objections would be a good way to challenge oneself and further develop one's belief system -- perfectly legitimate reasons, IMO, but I can't imagine making that argument for all places, all beliefs, or all people. Too, for anyone who has limited time or money to travel, I would think there would be an opportunity cost -- the cost of NOT going somewhere else, with all the experiences and opportunities provided by that alternative location.

But I don't think you are addressing my question -- whether there a place for political opinion on a forum devoted to travel.