I may be wrong, but I am not aware there are any formal blacklist of terms. This is a science forum, therefore black listing terms, would not be true to the spirit of science. There can be situations where a black list would be like having to throw out data, thereby biasing inferences and conclusions. The purpose for black listing is to bias how one interprets a situation.

As an example, say we are discussing the forest and it is taboo to say the words, squirrel and tree branch. This censor might be due to the protecting the feelings of a few people. However, from the scientific POV, this censor, even if useful at an emotional level, it will make it hard to have an objective discussion of the forest. We will be required to leave out some data, thereby misrepresenting the forest. In the future, forests can never have tree branches or squirrels, even though everyone on a field trip may see both.

Say someone on the field trip to the forest, asked the question, isn't that a squirrel on that tree branch? If this blacklisted, the result is the objective curiosity of a young and coming scientist would become grounds for discipline. This sends the message that objectify will not be allowed or even tolerated. To reduce the paradox of having to hurt the feelings of all the objective people, to protect feelings of the irrational, we may need to trap all the squirrels and trim off all the branches in the forest, so we can reduce intellectual and emotional conflict. This is not a natural forest, but will be called a natural forest, so science and feelings can be on the same page.

It appears on this forum, nothing is black listed, with the constraint socially taboo terms can only be mentioned if there is a context in a discussion. You can't just add the word squirrel if talking about the bottom of the ocean. That would not forward science, but might only be added to hurt feelings. If we talk about the forest, then the term squirrel is possible, since it adds to full scientific data disclosure so a natural forest is not made unnatural.

Besides black listed terms, there white listed terms, designed for enhanced emotional sentiment. These can also bias science. For example, when you hear the term, we are destroying the planet, this is not physically possible. Even if we exploded all the nuclear weapons, the earth will not end up as an asteroid belt. The idea of CO2 destroying the planet is not physically possible. The term, we are destroying the planet is added for emotional appeal. It sort of adds whales to the forest, who might live in the trees, but not on the branches. This is not real data, but is designed to be treated as such, so it can further distort one's ability to do objective science. It is up to each of us to point these out so an objective science discussion can happen.

There is one last main technique. As an example, if you don't go alone with the conclusions of manmade global warming you are a denier. If you don't see the science in a certain defined way, there is something wrong with you. The idea is to insult people emotionally, so they will block out objective data, in order to avoid a harmful emotional situation.

 If you like squirrels, then there is something wrong with you and therefore everyone can insult you. It is OK to get neurotic about squirrels but you better not like squirrels. The next time you are in the forest, the neurotic will look away If you are caught looking at a squirrel, you will be suspect, less your bad behavior draw attention to the squirrels and hurt feelings.