Can One Dislike?

Out of the more than 150 articles published on my blog to date, only two have a press line > (The 8 reasons I dislike flying and Why Angkor disappointed me). Only two!

And two articles that did not go unnoticed, far from it: controversy, more than a hundred comments, virulent criticisms and even insults. I then started to question myself...

and especially > !

What is the goal of a blog?

In my eyes, it's sharing: the sharing of experiences, personal stories, and insights. For known facts and universal truths, encyclopedias exist. For descriptions of paradisiacal landscapes, cocktail in hand on fine sandy beaches, the websites of travel agencies are there.

And for real experiences, there are blogs.

Travel bloggers are independent and honest reporters: they write what they want, in the way they wish. No need to praise the merits of one destination over another... if it wasn't appreciated. The favorites I share, such as the Galapagos, Patagonia, Easter Island, or Mexico, are real and authentic: they are >!

But this subjectivity in blogs does not guarantee nuance: many reviews will be exclusively positive.

I find two reasons for this phenomenon of > : selection bias and mood bias.

Selection Bias

Travel bloggers are passionate: they love travel and discovery. The places they visit are their choices. They often set off with a positive preconception about their upcoming trip.

This > selection of destinations creates a bias: traveling only to attractive countries thus results in providing only positive experiences.

The risk is to stigmatize certain destinations and create idealized collective representations of a country or region. Idealization is inherently an exaggeration of positive traits and a softening of less pleasant traits.

Mood Bias

To this first tendency, a second phenomenon is added. The traveler is often subject to >, a pleasantly strong malady for its aphrodisiac tendencies that makes >:

The world is beautiful, people are kind... and it's sunny too!

But mood isn't always high during travel. Sometimes the traveler gets tired or accumulates several minor negative incidents: the blues set in, leading to a more negative vision. At the heart of subjectivity: the traveler's feelings thus also depend on their mood!

Through these two biases, travelers' narratives online tend to be exclusively positive. Few reviews are mixed or negative.

But beyond these mood swings, not everything is rosy in travel. How many times are we spectators of scenes that displease us?

Whether it's the mother opening the bus window to throw her child's trash, the state of the roads as tangible signs of national corruption, the filth, scams, mistreated ruins, overtourism, poverty, children working instead of going to school... No, certainly, not everything is rosy in travel.

From the moment that not everything is either rosy or perfect in the world: yes, one can dislike (a destination, an activity...) when traveling. It's normal and even positive: it allows for nuance in experiences!

We do not live in a perfect society where > (for those who haven't seen the film >, I invite you to at least watch the first 5 minutes: a scathing critique of a society of appearance, led by a dictatorial power and media dictating what to think, do, and love... A society where everyone smiles, everyone is happy, and everything is perfect!).

Disliking also allows one to... love authentically! If I was disappointed by my discovery of the temples of Angkor, I absolutely loved the remote temples in the country. Loving and disliking are the extremes of the same continuum, allowing for thousands of variations in between: thousands of nuances to love.

Witness to negative aspects or disillusionments:

Can (or should) we talk about it? Or should we remain silent witnesses?

This question can be subdivided into three other points concerning the three pillars of communication:

the message sender, the message itself, and the message receiver.

Can the sender talk?

The question here concerns freedom of expression. While knowing that one cannot > just any way (in form and content: within the limits of respecting others' rights and expression online), fundamental rights ensure everyone has freedom of expression.

Can the message be problematic?

Freedom of expression allows the issuance of all kinds of messages (as long as they respect: they aren't hateful, racist...).

Can the receiver be a problem?

Speaking means addressing someone: it implies an interlocutor before us, a reader in the case of a blog. I believe this is where the issue lies, the most sensitive point of the trio, which is beyond the author's control.

Not all receivers are interested in every existing message, and that's normal: everyone's sensitivities play a role here. But these receivers (or readers), if they ignore certain topics, respond to others with enthusiasm, sometimes with vehemence, aggression, and hate.

So why such unconstructive reactions, since freedom of expression exists and the message follows societal rules?

Again, the receiver can become a sender and return the ball to the message's author, to comment, to give their opinion. Once the sender, they enjoy the same rights and limits of freedom of expression. Thus, while a blog can (or may be) a wonderful space for sharing and exchange of opinions, these exchanges must aim to be constructive. Speaking to destroy has never contributed anything. To anyone.

I have experienced the troubles of >: I received dozens of comments regarding the article on Angkor, and for the first time since creating the blog, I had to disapprove some comments. You can see, in the more than 150 comments at the bottom of the article, numerous responses that do not share my viewpoint, expressed in varying degrees of constructiveness, aggression.

I accepted them, it's normal: I enjoy the exchange of opinions. The few comments I did not allow contained insulting, hateful, degrading messages... Language that should not be found on the Internet and even less so on a simple travel blog.

I then questioned: but why are these people aggressive? Why do they react this way? Most aggressive comments proved in their content that their authors didn't even read the article in full, let alone the articles I referenced (such as the one on the remote temples).

After reflection and exchanges with other bloggers, the answer is simple: it's the jungle of the internet and the anonymity it affords.

Just as some drivers feel omnipotent behind their steering wheels, untouchable and anonymous; some internet users feel invulnerable behind their screens, and engage in >. Some do it out of conviction, crafting their messages with >, others for the pleasure of tearing down, insulting... But in both cases, these messages have no constructive aim.

I still remain astonished by certain comments like:

.>

Far from wanting to defend myself against all these judgments, I note their authoritarian side supported by a singular way of thinking. Where is the dialogue?

A blog is meant for sharing and exchanging. I appreciate receiving comments. It shows that the reader has listened to me, taken the time to discover what I had to say, reflected on it, and constructed an idea from there: the desire to exchange arises.

Comments allow for expressing opinions: the goal is not to find >, but to encourage the other to hear and if possible understand their viewpoint (and not impose it). Far from the jousts of persuasion where truth is singular, blog comments can reflect as many realities as there are experiences and readers.

In an ideal world, comments (just like articles) should be written:

with sincerity, with respect: correct vocabulary and a non-aggressive style; with thought: read the article to the end, do not judge based on the title or first line, do not >; with a constructed argumentation: giving one's viewpoint in exchange is interesting, particularly if that opinion is substantiated; with a constructive aim: why are you commenting? To correct, nuance, evolve, support, contradict, add...? Then it's perfect!

Before even visiting Angkor, we discussed with friends met in Siem Reap, fellow bike travelers. Their story as bloggers is interesting.

Departing in 2008, they created their blog (Viavelo) so their children, families, and friends could follow their adventures around the world. They quickly realized that their relatives were not closely following their accounts, but instead, they were being read by many travel enthusiasts. These readers, ever-growing in number, journeyed through their articles, dreamt of enchanting descriptions of life at the other end of the planet, and escaped with their paradisiacal photos.

These travelers had thus gathered a passionate and supportive community around them. But after years of travel, the two travelers' view evolved: not everything is beautiful on our planet. Man is also capable of the worst, Nature is not always respected, and living conditions are not always easy... They then decided to change their blog's approach. Here is the message you can read on their homepage:

. We will now show you what the modern world truly is and its absurdities. Our journey is now called... >. >>

They knew that this change of course was risky. It didn't take long to see their readership nosedive drastically, to the point that they are currently considering stopping their blog.

It's once again at the level of the message receiver that the issue arises. If the question is simple >, the answer is not!

Some avenues exist to attempt to explain this phenomenon:

.

.

In travel, can one dislike what is seen? I think yes! Can one say it? I think so too.

I love sharing my impressions in this blog, my thoughts, and my tips. It's a complex and sincere ensemble. My favorites are genuine, just as my disappointments are. These two extremes, if they exist, are not common on the blog: 5 favorite destinations and 2 > out of more than 150 articles. And in between, hundreds of nuances...

And you, do you think one can dislike while traveling? Can one say it? What are your experiences in this regard?

Please refrain from launching insults

To go further:

The articles > :

Why Angkor disappointed me 8 reasons I don't like flying Impressions of Sri Lanka

Some destination articles > :

Favorite destination: the Galapagos 6 reasons to go to Sintra First impressions in Patagonia Easter Island: 5 reasons to succumb to its charm First impressions in Mexico Jordan featuring, among others, Petra: a wonder etched in stone and sand 10 reasons to love Sicily