Myself, I don't give a barnacle about curse words. I think censors are a bunch of bullcannon for over-sensitive, bilge-drinking halibuts.
That said, when given the ability I actually prefer replacing censored words with humorous alternatives.
For example, an online pirate-themed game I once played replaced certain curse words with rather amusing piratey alternatives:
- ass(es) -> booty(ies)
- asshole* -> barrelstopper*
- *bitch* -> tart*
- blowjob* -> harmonica lesson
- clit -> rosebud
- cock -> mast
- cocksuck* -> bilgedrink*
- cum -> bilge
- cunt* -> shrew
- dildo* -> tickler*
- fag(s) -> landlubber(s)
- *fuck* -> *scupper*
- gay -> happy
- muff -> britches
- *penis* -> *John Thomas*
- pussy* -> kitty
- *shit -> *cannon
- shit* -> barnacle*
- slut -> strumpet
- tits -> bosom
- titty* -> bosom
- twat -> halibut
- whore* -> flirt (previously trollop)
- vagina(s) -> dainty(ies)
Etc. Certain extremely "bad" words were simply not allowed at all. This system worked remarkably well, as users were still able to communicate without much hindrance, and the often-amusing results tended to lighten situations.
That said, this does require a general theme for the community, I do not think a random collection of replacement words would have quite the same value. The trick is to choose a word set that is humorous, consistent, and still allowing users to get their point across.
Simply blocking the posts altogether is always a bad idea. Users will be forced to find a way to post their content and the path of least resistance is to simply come up with creative spellings to work around the filter. By allowing the post but modifying the words afterwards, this creates a barrier out of the extra review and edit steps required for a user to go back and work around the filter - plus the user was not met with the frustrating UX motivation of having to edit just to get their main post out.
Note that, on a much deeper psychological level, this is actually somewhat similar to SE sites' successful system of flags and community edits - it provides constructive, positive feedback on what is acceptable (albeit via direct automated replacements rather than user feedback - but in any case it doesn't e.g. create frustrating UX of not allowing posts or unsatisfying word replacements, which doesn't actually improve long-term culture).