What are the criteria that make you choose one destination over another? (page 5 of 10)

Cool cool Mme Attila

I had the impression that you prioritized human connection and that solitude wasn’t really your thing (meaning traveling in the middle of nowhere without meeting anyone except your travel companions).

Am I completely wrong?

I’m responding, but I don’t have anything exciting to share, and nobody cares anyway! Yes, I do prioritize human connection—I love meeting people, I love cities, I love warmth (the cold paralyzes me), I don’t walk much because I’m too lazy, and I enjoy a bit of contemplative solitude but not too much. Solo travel? Not for me—beauty is meant to be shared. A change of scenery recharges me, visual art in all its forms fulfills me, and I love discovering cuisine that feels “exotic” to me. My big trips always take me back to Asia or North Africa, while my mini getaways are in European cities or nearby. 🙂

But right now, you know what I’m craving? A week in a stunning, expensive hotel on a Seychelles beach, just lounging all day with my partner. 😉

I don’t know if everyone else doesn’t care.

But everything written here says a lot more about us than our profiles do. 🙂

You’re the first, I think, to mention this musical criterion! 😉

Yes, yes, more than a Taliban! 😇

Sorry, you had already replied.

But I’ve been wondering about this:

I’ll prioritize a destination I haven’t been to yet.

Then why so many trips to Thailand?

I didn’t write that word—I’m thinking about society as a whole. There’s a difference, right?

Society is dominated by those who govern it. Right now, it's the Taliban.🤪

QED. The same goes for some who refuse to return. In the past, many discussions weren’t derailed by differing opinions but by others’ outraged disapproval—sometimes subtly, in an attempt to provoke a reaction and get someone banned.

Again, I advocate for dialogue in good faith. Besides, those who are reasonable usually agree to keep exchanging ideas. The others, unfortunately, remain stuck in the dark side. Stubbornly. A lack of openness, of humanity?

Maybe some people personalize debates unreasonably, have an overly reactive sensitivity, and claim—with an unhealthy, greedy complacency—the status of victim or offended party, as if it were a badge of honor...

In your own discussion, where are they, what are they doing?, you say this: I was thinking of those who attack when no one attacked them.

Where do you draw the line on aggression in this discussion? ... @Attila

Times are darkening, yet travel plans still exist. Of course, the planet couldn’t care less if we wander weighed down by its absurdities, eyes damp and heads bowed—even if some places and peoples would be better off without our compulsive zigzagging. But still...

To those who answered the question, here’s another: Does the tectonic shift of geopolitics threatening to reshape the world’s future and redraw its boundaries... do these uncertain times have any influence on your desire to go or project yourself carefreely?

don’t these uncertain times have any influence on your desire to travel or to plan carefree trips?

I feel like uncertain times aren’t exactly new. Sure, they’re getting geographically closer, but conflicts have always existed.

On the flip side, the tough times had a silver lining: Europe realized it needs to unite in the face of adversity and not always rely on "unreliable friends."

But we’re kinda drifting off-topic here...

Laurence,

As they say, you shouldn’t take me for a fool.

I might be a tad paranoid, but I’m not completely clueless.

What I find unhealthy—and what’s made me uncomfortable for a long time, maybe 20 years—is the sticky tone you and Voyajou use to deliver contradictions in stereo, without the guts to confront things head-on. It’s really unpleasant. Some of you might think it’s stylish, but I’m not impressed. In real life, I’m more straightforward than that, and in my work, I can’t afford to be so convoluted—I have a duty to be understood and credible. So here, too, I try to say things in a readable, polite, and clear way. It’s possible you can’t stand my lack of French wit or my libertarian views—whatever you want to call it—but you could at least oppose them frankly.

So when you explain that your allusion to a "bad wind" was a nod to Verlaine, while it was actually meant to discredit someone for their supposed complacency toward fascism, I don’t buy it for a second. When Voyajou later piles on in message 61 of the discussion, I find it heavy-handed and far from subtle. A quick note on your "inclusive" writing... In certain contexts, depending on the audience, it’s debatable; here, honestly, it just feels like activism. There’s no need to keep rehashing old battles if you don’t want to. VoyageForum is big enough for us to chart our own paths without clashing.

Michel

I’ve always wondered why a seemingly light topic can turn into a full-blown debate so quickly on this forum.

The question is for everyone.

(I preferred the one in the title, but oh well...)

You’ve been interacting on this forum for years. If Kola gets on your nerves (I think you’re too binary to handle her metaphors ;)), why do you still address her? Why do you always feel targeted? Yeah, it’s true you’re polite. But so is she.

Pugilism seems a bit strong, doesn’t it?

A pretty sharp verbal sparring match if you prefer.

You’ve been interacting on this forum for years. If Kola gets on your nerves (I think you’re too binary to handle her metaphors 😉), why do you always address her? Why do you always feel targeted? Yes, it’s true you’re polite. But so is she.

I don’t always address her 🙂. And I feel targeted because I am, and you shouldn’t take me for a fool. I love good metaphors—I’m even paid for it sometimes.

Michel

I love good metaphors, I even get paid for it sometimes.

Are you a teacher?

You a teacher?

Not in the way you mean.

Michel