Before modern times, slave was just a common word to define people who had been put under slavery. Back then, you would've scoffed at the idea of censoring away a perfectly acceptable word because "it's not commonly understood to be offensive". That's what I gather from your refusal to recognize SSL as an offensive term referencing the Arizona street gang.
1. I'm calling out people who are making disingenuous arguments for the sake of argument ("The term SSL is a deep insult to my culture.") Are you actually upset by "SSL" referring to an Arizona street gang? If so, I'm sorry to hear that, but:
2. I, personally, put my bar at "is it a common understanding that this term widely means bad shit?" If you brought this to me, I would say: sorry, I understand, but I don't think this is widely understood to mean "South Side Locos". If this makes me terrible in your eyes, then so be it. But I don't think that's what you're angling for with this line of argument.
Like I said, if you are going to stand up for one group and not for another, I find it hard to believe that you actually stand for anything. Could it be it's just the group of the day for you and it's something you can feel good about because it's the appropriate thing in the current cultural climate?
Does everyone know that SSL is a street gang in Arizona? No, they fucking don't.
Does everyone know that master/slave are terms relating to literal ownership of human beings? Yes, they fucking do.
Does this require a consideration of the cultural zeitgeist? No, it doesn't, because everyone knows slavery is bad.
All of this bullshit you are tacking on is literally not what I believe.
This is what I would say if I were in the league of those trying to censor everything I, or anyone somewhere don't like. You cannot win against these people vore. One day they will come for something that you may hold very dear to your heart or person. And they will cry in pain as they strike you. Because you're the evil one getting in the way of their change and progressive activism.