I've known some people who considered religious curses inherently "aggressive", on the principle that blasphemy is an offense against god instead of the other people around you. But even the people who would chastise someone for swering in a crisis had the sense to wait for the end of that crisis.

I'd imagine that as much as anything, this is about 911 dispatching being a thoroughly unnatural role. On one end of the phone, it's a life-and-death crisis, but on the other it's the twelfth call of an eight-hour shift. Miscommunication across that kind of gap seems inevitable.

I think people like that are absolute babies. It's okay if you don't curse or even if you want to privately judge those who do but who rebukes another adult for a bit of salty language? Does anyone have a view that might change my mind?

I agree. Fair or not, I associate that with being rather sheltered. They’re just words, and a “bad” word uttered into the void, not directed at anyone in particular, has no power over you. To see people recoil over a simple “fuck!” when I stub my toe suggests a naïveté that I don’t have time for.

If nobody speaks up for being civil, there's no incentive to be civil. Certainly we need folk speaking up for civility so we can keep using our expletives with appropriate conviction. After all, the whole f'ing reason for cursing is to offend.

If you're not offended, I have to try harder to convey my indignity, you naughtyhead.

I think there may be two schools of thought here, though.

Some people interpret the very act of cursing as incivility, regardless of the purpose, and some people only view it as uncivil if it is meant to be uncivil.

Personally, I don’t agree that the only reason to curse is to offend. In my mind, curse words have a very specific meaning and sometimes they are by far the most appropriate word for a situation.

I would liken it to using words that describe parts of the human anatomy. There are some people who would never say the word penis in polite company, but sometimes it’s just the only word for the job.

Also, I’m not suggesting that my interpretation is the only reasonable one, just that I think there are widely varying positions.

I'm Australian and I think a large portion of us use swear words almost like punctuation.

Of course it depends on the social context. I'm not going to be swearing much at all at work and still feel a little startled (not offended, just surprised and maybe vaguely uncomfortable) when my manager drops an F-bomb or two. Yet around friends and family, F-bombs (and C-bombs [1] around close friends!) are almost used like exclamation points, purely to draw emphasis and attention to a statement.

I can only conclude it's one of those cultural things. So while I respect that some people find swearing deeply offensive and particularly only useful to offend, that's a really alien concept to me.

[1] F-bomb and C-bomb are slang terms referring to f..k and c..t respectively.

I think it's very contextual. I'd expect such a rebuff from my grandmother - at any age. From a public service, I'd expect them to be overly familiar with the stresses involved.

Yes, but if your grandmother rebuffs me, I’ll think, “what the hell?”

My grandmother was a school teacher. If you said it around her, you might well get the rebuke, whether or not you were her grandchild.

Many have triggers around tone of voice or curse words. So in some cases triggered ptsd ( trauma related pattern) and not really a choice available to take it personally or not. Trauma may be caused by repeated scenarios of control, humiliation, abuse, especially toward children.

I recommend nonviolent communication, the book and the practice. Teaches the ability to “translate” highly charged conversations into basic human needs and feelings.

I don't think the dispatcher reacted appropriately, but "how the hell should I know" comes across a lot like "you're stupid to think I could answer that question".

The full analysis of the call is fascinating.

For the dispatcher, the question was sensible because "I don't know" is one fork in triage that helps separate from answers like "she's diabetic so maybe her blood sugar dropped". For the caller, it feels like he's expected to have an answer and isn't getting helped by the dispatcher, particularly if he already knows that he doesn't have any useful information.

From a completely dispassionate view, the dispatcher still got his answer: no known cause, continue to step 2. But as far as training dispatchers, it raises all kinds of questions: Can you reorder the questions to get the caller's observations and then their knowledge? Can you rephrase 'why?' so that "I don't know" feels like part of the process and not a breakdown of it? Can you prepare the dispatcher better to deescalate or ignore the hostility instead of worsening it?

"do you know why" or "have an idea why" might be a good jumping off point, though a lot slower to say. "Are you aware of any existing conditions (that might be relevant to this emergency)" is probably too long.

"Do you know why" sounds pretty good. It's not only less demanding, it's less likely to attract a guess from someone who feels obliged to answer.

Emergency Medical Dispatch is a fascinating case study of technical communication in general. Lots of jobs train people to communicate urgent information clearly, but EMD has exceptionally specific limitations. Only one side of the call is trained, so you can't rely on rehearsed protocols like EMTs or police officers would. And the priority of information is completely unintuitive to most of us because it's not just importance, but sequencing: info needed to dispatch an ambulance comes first, then info to help the caller do first aid, and only after that the seemingly crucial stuff like "what's actually making them sick".