[ensignavenger]

I suppose that depends entirely on what "*" is blanking out. Given the context, the grand-kid seems to be upset at the protestors. If "*" is a racist slur, then yeah... (still says nothing for sure about the parents or grand parents, though) but if it is just some general swear word, then he sounds more like an angry person with a potty mouth.

[gkoberger]

Here's the full post, but the bad words are still redacted (which is insane to redact "evidence," leaving us to assume he used a slur, but whatever). Based on context I think it's probably just a swear word, but the post doesn't make him look good. He even says this situation is "making [him] racist" and says people deserve to die.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-lorain/jud...

[ensignavenger]

Sure, I read the article. If he had used a racial slur, most media would report it something like "used the 'n-word'". They did not, and thus I can only guess he did not (or perhaps the version the media got was redacted? I can't imagine why a court would redact a bad word, racial slur or not...)

This is also the grand kid of the business owners. There can be significant differences across generations of families in attitudes.

[dekhn]

none of those dumb things he said on social media affect my opinion of the case against oberlin.

[crazygringo]

Yes, I'm assuming it's the f-word.

Swear words are almost never totally redacted in common usage, the first consonant is maintained so you know which one.

By totally redacting the swear words, we're left to assume the worst -- maybe it was the n-word?

But if it were, you can be sure that would have been reported. The fact that it wasn't means it's almost certainly just the f-word.

But that those redacting it probably did so intentionally to try to make it look worse. Which is in bad faith.