Yes, we know. We get it. Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs. This is obvious and well-known to anyone actually using Rust.
At this point, the argument feels like some sort of ideological debate happening outside the realm of actually getting work done. It feels like any time someone says that Rust defends against certain types of safety errors, someone feels obligated to pop out of the background and remind everyone that it doesn’t protect against every code safety issue.
That's not exactly the vibe I'm getting from the typical Rust fanboys popping up whenever there's another CVE caused by the usage of C or C++ though ;)
Rust does seem to attract the same sort of insufferable personalities that have been so typical for C++ in the past. Why that is, I have no idea.
Indeed, there's a lot of damage control going on in this thread walking back Rust's guarantees of safety despite that, up until this point, being Rust's only real selling point. It seems like every C/C++/Go/whatever repository has at least one issue suggesting a complete rewrite in Rust.
Edit to add: My guess is that the Rust community might still be worse because now we have widespread Internet access and social media.