system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: using partial bleep censoring/grawlixes, e.g. "sh*t" instead of "shit", where the audience knows the censored word is pointless

I'm surprised by how often I see "sh\*t" for "shit" and similar substitutions in contexts where essentially 100% of the audience will be adults (or near enough) and familiar with the word in question. A reader familiar with the word will still understand the full meaning. I can see some value in a form of it where the audience includes young children and the writer does not want to teach them a word that their parents might not want them to know, though in that case I think far more of the word should be censored, e.g. "s***".

I've deliberately picked a word that most people on reddit won't find very offensive, but this applies to racial slurs and such as well, which many here find extremely offensive. If the word is too offensive to use, it makes more sense to me to avoid referencing it directly at all, e.g. "Joe was fired for referring to a coworker by a racial slur". If it's necessary to quote it for precision or emotional impact, it may as well be quoted in full.

I've seen it done for words describing traumatic experiences too. I'd be surprised if anyone's PTSD is less triggered by seeing a word related to their experience with a single letter obscured than by seeing the full word, but please do surprise me if you have personal or professional experience, or research that contradicts this.
gpt
The idea is to signal an intent not to offend and to demonstrate understanding of the taboo associated with the word.  It's like saying the f-word, pretty much everyone knows the word you mean in context but are more fine with it because it signals a lack of intent to use the word offensively often talking about the word in meta.