It appears to me that you’re equating “hate speech” with “suckerpunches to the gut.” I don’t think that “hate speech” is intended as a synonym in the quoted passage. Even if it is, the use of the keyword “context” trumps that quibble in my opinion.
The point under consideration is “Hate speech in the Pit.” Here’s the link. Point of Order-Hate Speech in the Pit - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board
I see it entirely differently. The list of words that are verboten regardless of context are the trump cards. Hence the qualifier, “nothing more.” If their meaning is nothing more than a sucker punch, then context is irrelevant. Were that not the case, their meaning would, in fact, have more interpretations. Since the only possible interpretation is that of a sucker punch, they are de facto on the list.
At the time of this post, this thread is in About This Message Board, and appears, in the words of the OP to this thread, to be concerning “Is there a list of banned words, insults or such?”
In the cited quote from TVeblen “We aren’t about to create a list of forbidden words.”
The linked Pit thread is some amusing reading but in my opinion does not address the OP’s concerns.
In response to the added content of your post, the key words to me are “I see it entirely differently” which eliminates my adding anything further, as I see it entirely differently, too.
Directly after which she lists four. Can you not see the disconnect?
What disconnect?
For the record, my impression is “The gratuitous use of hate speech, including terms considered insulting by a national, ethnic, religious, sexual-orientation group, etc., is against the ‘Don’t be a jerk’ rule.” If someone asked, “Where did the term ‘Hottentot’ come from? Who are or were the Hottentots?” that would be a totally valid GQ – and Mr Dibble would be among those first to answer it, and without any snide comments from what I know of him. That is fighting ignorance. And if a member uses a term that is on somebody’s hot-button list in all innocence, I believe the Moderators would be quick to recognize that it was in fact a purely innocent use, and overlook entirely the problem – certainly no one saw the former name of Nzinga, Seated as an intentional insult – quite the contrary!
It was this incident which finally confirmed by respect for Excalibre’s seeming encyclopedic knowledge of Ethnology: I suspect that if you ever have occasion to insult a Semigallian or a Kamchadal, he will know just what to call them for maximum slur value! 
In my mind, she was giving examples of words that would generally be considered “hate speech” outside specific reasonable uses, not even close to creating a list – much as Dex cites examples when outlining a staff ruling on a controverted question. A hypothetical question, “How did the term ‘kike’ become an insult for Jew?” or “Does the insult ‘spic’ target all Hispanic people, or only certain nationalities?” would be acceptable uses, IMO – as would quoting a racist fictional character talking in dense argot, in CS, with a request to clarify what he’s saying about whom.
I can see you trying to create one where none exists. Why you’re doing that, I won’t speculate.
And the great Bobby Short, singing “Hottentot Potentate”! Despite learning a lot about the meaning of the word from Mr. Dibble, I have to say I still love that song. You can listen to a sample from it here (shopping.yahoo.com).
Give me another explanation for citing examples of words that are [nothing more] than “sucker punches to the gut.”
You could ask, if you really wanted to know. Or you could read the linked OP. At any rate, thanks for letting me know what you don’t care to think about. Always helpful to the discourse. I guess.
What else are you not thinking about? Just so I’ll know. I would not want to impose undue deliberation on you.
How do you account for her stating that those terms have no other meaning than “sucker punches to the gut?” Do you suppose that I could call a Jewish member a kike and not be chastised by the administration? How does “outside specific reasonable uses” reconcile with “nothing more?” Doers the phrase “nothing more” seem equivocable to you?
I think this question has been asked and answered, and I see that folks are starting to get snippy at each other. This isn’t the forum for being snippy. Case closed.