The general advice (from the faq and expressed here) for bad and rude posts is "flag don't edit" Flagging is easy, and after a few "rude" flags, the question will quickly disappear (even without mod action because "Community (bot)" will delete it. I think the standard is "six red flags from normal users".
Obvious insults, like this, get flag-deleted quicker if the post isn't edited.
The exceptions would be when it seems a second user has added the rudeness (should be rare, as only high rep users can edit without approval) or when a question is so manifestly high quality that is should not be deleted - for borderline cases it is still better to flag and let mods and the community sort it out.
Relevant guidance from Meta:
If you just remove content that you deem offensive, then you are making a judgment by yourself, on your own. I think there is something fundamentally wrong about this in a community-driven site like this.
I say you should use the 'flag this as offensive' option, as it's the fairest way.
If an otherwise valid post contains vulgar words as an expression of frustration, edit the bad part out instead of flagging the entire post as rude or abusive. If this results in an edit war or rollback war, flag for moderator attention.
Since the community has awarded you with enough reputation points to edit posts, the community trusts you to do the right thing when you see offensive posts: You should trust your own judgment too, and do what you feel is necessary in the particular situation.