First, someone can be offended but not targeted. My dad's racist rants offend me, that's not cancel culture. And it's not on behalf of the group he's ranting about, it's because he's a savage. I'm offended by his lack of effort, empathy, and curious conversation.
Second, surely you can appreciate the difference between master in a master-slave configuration and master as in, good at something. A masters degree doesn't imply a slave degree.
No, I'm not the one glossing over anything. git repositories don't have "slave" branches, just a "master' as in template or origin. It's other people who think every code repository needs to be renamed because they don't understand the difference. Or worse, since like the article indicates it's mostly highly "educated" white people that want this, they are implicitly saying other people don't understand the nuance (I wouldn't even use that word, since the situation is so far removed from slavery).
That isn't true - master in git comes from master in BitKeeper which did have slave replicas.
https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H...
Not that there is anything wrong with slave in this context.