[CamperBob2]

Because language is a co-operative activity, choosing to do things you know will offend others is your fault

Sorry, no. It's absurd to expect me to take responsibility for someone else's offense at my use of "master" and "slave" in a technical document. This isn't a question of semiotics. At this point it's more like a Monty Python sketch. I'm not familiar enough with the Mario franchise to grasp your analogy, unfortunately.

The way I think of it is in terms of power: if you demand the right to control and revise the language we share, you're claiming an incredible privilege, and you're doing so without consulting many who have no voice to object. (By 'demanding' I mean claiming an unearned right to the moral high ground, as was done by the people who added that paragraph to the Cisco documentation. That degree of sanctimony normally requires religious backing.)

That doesn't mean you're wrong -- there are hurtful words that have few or no benign uses, after all, and it's easy to make the case that we're better off without them. But the burden of proof is a heavy one in the general case, due to the power required to shame the rest of society into compliance. It isn't met here.