Civilized behavior isn't the opposite of adult - au contraire, IMO. Generally, the fouler the language, the younger the emitter (or the less ... em, refined). Not to say there's anything wrong with the occasional expletive, but the filter should be in place to protect from the abuse, not the words themselves.

If I see a post with 23 bad words out of 40, I'd much rather have asterisks than replacements, because, frankly, if anyone suggests my mother is involved in questionable behavior it's not the wording that annoys me, it's the idea, the intent of the emitter. And replacing the words with equivalents allows the idea across.

The point of asterisks is to look at a post and, in the first 500 ms, see that it's peppered with ****s and *****s and ****. This allows me to conveniently jump over it if I don't feel like brushing against these kinds of people that day.

Also, replacing with equivalents also distorts the original meaning, for example, sh*t means all kinds of ... stuff, like excrement, but also stuff, as in someone's stuff, it's also an expression, interjection, the act of, a sum of ideas, etc. Ironically, replacing sh*t with excrement blocks most meanings except the bad one.

Oh, and, how does anyone tell that the replacement wasn't as the original poster intended? This could lead to confusion.

So, I vote for asterisks. Or even better, special asterisks to let the reader know it was a replacement, or an intentional self-censorship. I sometimes posts asterisks.