Hi!

This is mentioned in Axel Olrik’s “Loke in Younger Tradition”, which was originally written in Danish but can be found in translation here.

On the west coast of Jutland, in Lem near Ringkøbing, the dandelion  is called “Låkkilæjer”. “-læjer”  and “-leger” is used in the compound of several blooming plants.  The dandelion must have been connected with “Låkki” because  of its vigorous growth in the early and warm part of the summer, maybe also  because of its transient fruit-down and the poisonous sap.

These names illustrate how widespread the notions about “the  sowing of Lokke” - or at least his airy activities in the warm days of  the spring - have been. A name like “Låkkilæjer” probably  does not make sense with the peasants any more – it has to originate from  a time span, before –s was used for personal name as genitive –  which means several centuries.

Olrik cites E.T. Kristensen’s Jyske Folkeminder IX for this bit of folklore.

Ah well, the safest explanation when an entire country’s people are stereotyped as rude is that they have their own culture with different criteria for politeness than the ones you are used to. It’s probably easier for Americans to forget this than for the rest of the world, because they consume less foreign media than the rest of us (from literature in translation to foreign films) and are less exposed to aspects of foreign cultures that could inform them about different norms of politeness (online interactions happen in their own language and follow their own (anglo) social codes.) With this insular worldview it's easy to take it for granted that American good manners are universal. They are not!

A very common gripe against American tourists in Paris is that they talk so loudly in public spaces, which is definitely rude here but I assume that in the US, people just have a different threshold for what constitutes 'loud' (I wonder if it is due to being used to having more space than Europeans). I also remember a discussion I had with one of my translation professors about the American concept of ‘active listening’ and how negatively it is perceived in France. It may be that in the US it is polite to make 'listening noises' at regular intervals while someone is speaking to you, ‘uh huh’, ‘right’, ‘yeah’, ‘really?’, and that you would perceive someone who just stands there silently as disinterested or thinking about something else. In France it is more polite to shut up and listen (with the occasional nod or ‘mmh’) and it's rather seen as annoying and rude to make a bunch of useless noise while someone is speaking.

There are of course countless examples like that. The infamous rude waiters in Parisian cafés probably seem a lot more rude and cold to people who have a different food culture... People from other cultures might consider a waiter terrible at his job if he doesn’t frequently check on them to make sure they don’t wait for anything, but the idea that a meal is a pleasant experience rather than just a way to feed yourself (esp when eating out) means we like having time to chat and just enjoy our table for a while, so we don’t mind as much waiting to order or for the next course. French people would typically hate if an overzealous waiter took the initiative to bring the note once we’re done with our meal so we don’t have to wait for it, as it would be interpreted as “you’re done, now get out of my restaurant.”

The level of formality required to be polite is quite high in France, which might contribute to French people being seen as rude by people with a more casual culture. To continue with waiters, even in casual cafés they will address clients with the formal you and conversely, and won’t pretend to be your friend (the fact that we don’t have the American tip culture also means they don’t feel the need to ingratiate themselves to you.) I remember being alarmed when a waitress in New York introduced herself and asked how I was doing. “She’s giving me her first name? What... am I supposed to with it? Use it?” It gave me some insight on why Americans might consider French waiters rude or sullen! It might also be more accepted outside of France to customise your dish—my brother worked as a waiter and often had to say “That won't be possible” about alterations to a dish that he knew wouldn’t fly with the chef, to foreign tourists who were stunned and angry to hear that, and probably brought home a negative opinion of French waiters. In France where the sentiment in most restaurants is more “respect the chef's skill” than “the customer is king”, people are more likely to be apologetic if they ask for alterations (beyond basic stuff) as you can quickly be seen as rude, even by the people you are eating with. 

And I remember reading on a website for learning English that the polite answer to “How are you?” is “I’m fine, thank you!” because it’s rude to burden someone you aren’t close to with your problems. In my corner of the French countryside the polite thing to do is to complain about some minor trouble, because saying everything is going great is perceived negatively, as boasting, and also as a standoffish reply that kind of shuts down the conversation, while grumbling about some problem everyone can relate to will keep it going. (French people love grumbling as a positive bonding activity!)

I find witchblr's total rejection of casting spells without someone's permission combined with their pro-curse/curse-positive attitude to be fascinating.

If one wants to claim that casting spells without someone's permission is always wrong, then it is wrong even if that spell is a curse against someone evil.

And if it's ethical to curse someone who is evil/abusive, are there then other exceptions to the rule about spellcasting without permission? What are those exceptions? Is it only wrong if the spell targets one person? What about community workings?

I dont know. As someone who doesn't curse because I find it immoral, I find the potential "conflicts" or troublespots in this ethical conundrum to be interesting!

Casting on someone without their permission is a negative act does not contradict the idea that sometimes a negative act is called for.

If you’re looking to work love magic, that always requires consent, or at least measures to ensure that free will is not being compromised, because love should be consensual.

If you’re looking to heal a particular person who is known to you, you ought to ask their permission out of courtesy, and because the magic will work better if they’re not fighting it.

If you’re looking to bring a particular person legal victory or good fortune or protection, it’s nice to ask if they want or need it first, but you can also just send it under the auspice of a blessing. Blessings are gifts, which fall into a grey area where the receiving party’s consent may or may not be required.

If you’re looking to curse someone, it’s a different story.

You don’t generally ask someone’s permission before you punch them in the face.

My path is about protecting my sovereignty and the sovereignty of others, and so I believe that every person has a right to consensual boundaries of their mind, body, and spirit. However there are many situations where there’s no clear black and white answer.

It’s unethical to touch someone or perform any medical procedure without someone’s consent. However, if you’re trying  to protect them or trying to save their life, there are different rules because of the circumstances. We have Good Samaritan laws based on the ethical philosophy that it’s better to protect life and safety first and ask forgiveness later. Protection Magic and Prayer falls in this gray area where you have to assess the situation. 

Similarly, it’s completely unethical to walk up to someone and punch them in the face, like Bree said. But if that person is physically harming me or someone else, I will absolutely get physical in order to reclaim my own physical sovereignty and safety or help someone else reclaim theirs. Think of it like circles. We each have our own circle. If someone walks into our circle and harms us we have every right to forcibly reclaim our circle, with aggression if necessary. They lost the right to their sovereignty as soon as they decided to violate mine. See, power dynamics in a situation matters.

I do think that perhaps a few of you misunderstood the intentions of this post, so hopefully this will clear them up! I wasn't expecting quite a response, so I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.

I, myself, am not condoning or condemning either curses or nonconsensual magic. I personally don't practice either for my own personal reasons, but like many of the commenters on this post, I don't really concern myself with how other people practice.

I just find ethical questions to be fascinating, especially when they aren't so clearly black and white, as is the case here. I find it fascinating that witchblr often does present it as black and white situation, though. In one post, someone could state how evil and disgusting nonconsensual love spells are, and in another post, state how curses are fine and it's up to the individual practitioner to determine if/when to use them.

Since I base my own craft off of my personal ethical system, I was curious to see how people navigate these ethical questions. It's just interesting to me to see some witches have more issues with unsolicited blessings than with curses, and I hoped to pick the brains of those who think this way! Ethics are rarely discussed on witchblr, so thanks all for participating!

ADHD brains need a delicate balance of positive and negative stimulus. You know what has never failed to supply me with the perfect amount if stimulus? The internet.

When I’m in a classroom, I’m in Class Mode. Sure I probably have my phone on me, but I’m far less likely to be tempted by it. I tend to genuinely want to listen to what the professor has to say (ooh! New Information!), and I can stim or doodle if I need to meet my minimum stimulus requirements.

My current favourites from r/trippingthroughtime.

Bonus:

Dancing in the Moonlight

I get emails from scam journals every damn day. They ask for scientific articles and then charge authors exorbitant publication fees.

ENTER DAN

Manuscript title: WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH BIRDS?

Fantastic work Dan. Surely they won't fall for i----

Only $1600 publication fee!

WOW. I've ~never~ given such a high score for an article review before.

But $1600 was too much for Dan...

Best part is the acknowledgements