For mean spirited I would consider

> There's something off-putting about how Rust people communicate. Like you're talking to people selling something, or people with ulterior motives.

Which is a radically wrong description of the tone of the OP that is purportedly the reason for the comment. And for the most impressive bit of un-self-reflective projection I've seen in a long time, there's

> And the way you write is extremely rude and condescending, if you do decide to phrase your comments in such a demeaning way (which I don't ever recommend), please at least be right next time.

Do you use Rust in a professional capacity? Because I do, and I do because I chose it for a project over C++. Rust is much nicer in certain ways than C++ (like cargo or the whole ecosystem of packages), but it's core idea and assumption (which imo can equivalently stated as 'the borrow checker' or 'exact aliasing control') is flawed as it is, and programmers of all skill levels struggle with it for various reasons when writing programs of real-world complexity.

There are 3 kinds of ways people percieve Rust - those who see it as a cool piece of tech (which I agree with), those who see it as a practical tool, and those who see liking or not liking Rust as an ideological statement. I see it as a tool.

There's a lot of statements around Rust that are true in the strict factual sense, but clearly meant to be read differently.

'Free beer at the pub tonight' is a true statement even though the full truth would be 'Free beer at the bar tonight (entry fee $200)'.

'Fearless concurrency' is among these statements meant to be interpreted as making concurrent programming easier. The true statement would be 'fearless concurrency (but you might need to rewrite your program)'.