This writing is so fucking ugly, and so is the website. I am going to try and summarize while adding in background information that the writer mistakenly assumes:

what makes the master a master is his indifference to the slave and his indifferent attitude when outsourcing the grunt work that is needed to get his desires fulfilled. The slave is characterised by fulfilling the desires of masters whom they hate and whats more they brew over their hatred until it stews into resentment*. People (eg hegel) who say "actually a master is dependent on a slave to have their desires fulfilled so really the master is the slave" are mistaken and are projecting their envy and hatred of the masters onto the masters.

*Nietzche said that this resentment lead downtrodden christian slaves to resort to creating a new model of morals which basically revolved around reframing their own weaknesses as moral strengths eg. the virtue of humility should be the ability to correctly estimate yourself, the christians reframed it to mean the virtue of having a low view of your own importance. They did this as a way to numb themselves and help them live through the pain of being dominated by their masters.