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.

This is something I wonder about too, Kja.

truthfully, I think it’s like anything else in regards to travel. You can’t say if it’s relevant or not without context. If it’s a safety issue—as in are Americans or women in general at risk in a certain destination—then it’s something that belongs on a travel board.

I think a lot of people take it too far, though, and I always wonder how they choose where they live. No place is ideal. I also think it’s very difficult to know what things are like “on the ground” just from news reports about national politics. I wouldn’t even be able to travel into the next county over if I based my travel decisions on the local politics.

On TA, there’s been a spate of posts about homelessness in Seattle. It is relevant, because I’d certainly tell a visitor about places they might want to avoid, or that they should ignore beggars. But the way it’s posted is rarely relevant. It doesn’t provide any actual practical information for visitors.

You can say the same thing about religion, culture, etc. Wearing a hajib in some places might be a lot more problematic for the local, and not the tourist. Dressing immodestly might be an issue for both groups, or it might not be an issue for a local, but it would be for a tourist who wants to visit churches. So I think it’s context that ultimately matters.

This thread certainly is providing some food for thought, and I think helping me understand my own approach to opinions about travel, political and otherwise!

I believe that opinions of all sorts can be a useful part of travel advice. As a Fodorite, I make decisions about whether to share certain opinions based on my understanding (which could be mistaken) of the value those opinions might have to an OP. If someone else offers an opinion with which I disagree, I might or might not share my opposing opinion -- again it depends on my assessment of the value of doing so -- but as rule, I wouldn't be sharing an opposing opinion with the intent of changing anyone's mind, but instead with the intent of providing input that the OP can use or not. If someone presents an opinion as though it is fact, I'm likely to challenge that opinion, but not with the goal of changing the opinion, but instead with the intent of shedding light on the possibility of alternative interpretations (i.e., trying to make it clear that the statement was opinion, not fact). And of course, I'm quite certain that I deviate from these generalizations with some frequency!

I'm not sure that arguing about opinions has value to a travel forum -- that may be heat, not light. In contrast, exploring opinions or trying to gain a better or fuller understanding of issues can, IMO, be very beneficial. And if those issues are political, they would seem to me just as useful as opinions about reconstructions vs. renovations or about how cruise ships affect a city or about whether an experience is a charming diversion or a tacky waste of time.

JMO -- for now, at least, and subject to change as you all give me reason to consider and reconsider. :star:

@ marvelousmouse: I completely agree that context is critical!

@ Traveler_Nick: I agree that decisions are, in fact, choices. I'd add that some decisions reflect informed choices; others reflect thoughtless ones. And I don't mean "thoughtless" as a pejorative term, but in it's literal sense -- without thought. And maybe that's one of the reasons that expressing opinions, political or otherwise, can be useful? We are, of course, always free to ignore the opinions people share with us, but if they don't share them, maybe we won't ever take certain issues into consideration. Just a thought!

@ crellston: I think your descriptions are illustrating what I would hope would occur when opinions are voiced -- not an acceptance of one opinion or another, but rather a goad to further research and some soul searching to make one's own decision. And sure, as soon as I solve the few problems we've got here in the U.S., I'll be happy to fix Brexit. ;) (We do live in a strange world, don't we?!?)

@ BDKR: I think we're getting a better sense that you and I approach things a bit differently -- and vive la difference! For all the reasons I just articulated, I do think it's relevant to know if someone has an opinion about political or other reasons to either visit or not visit a place. But I'm not going to try to change your opinion! It does seem that we agree that sharing opinions about HOW to travel can be important.

I actually think most people care *if* they know whatever it is. I generally know cultural stuff, for example, human rights, but I don’t closely follow environmental or politics.

Whether it changes whether they visit somewhere, that, I’m not so sure of. Shades of gray present like anything else. For me it kind of comes down to: is it safe? Are they deliberately violating the rights of a particular population in a horrific way? Otherwise I do my best (within my power) to not patronize businesses that I disagree with while I’m there, like owl cafes in Tokyo, elephant attractions in Thailand or anything that involves potential exploitation of human beings.

Safety more or less trumps everything for me as well. Most of the examples of human rights violations that I can think of, where I’d draw the line at visiting, are usually tied to signs that the country isn’t safe.

a government isn’t its people, but a government is the reason you can be stranded/arrested/not protected in case of a crime.

i agree that it’s a generalization—but my point was that an unstable or hostile government is one reason (of many) I might give a country a miss for safety reasons.