The attack is the idea that everybody needs to have the same priorities that Rust has and so everybody else is wrong. With regard to memory safety, this even something I could partially agree with, but then there is another problem: In contrast to Cyclone, which was a safe version of C, Rust changes a lot more than simply adding memory safety features. It is not at all like C but has completely different syntax, different conventions, and complexity similar to C++. So in many ways, I find it inferior to C (although I agree that memory safety is good), but Rust people think it is superior in every way and behave like this.
It's true, not everyone has the same priorities, and Rust may not provide the right set of tradeoffs when one is deciding which language to use. I don't believe that C is strictly inferior to Rust. There are cases where it's not worth trying to use Rust instead of C.
Unsafe Rust is more complex to use than C in some ways. For example, an iterator for a slice, which contains two raw pointers, relies on the lifetime of the array it refers to lasting longer than the slice, and to encode this you need to use PhantomData [1]. Things like this make it look more arcane than plain C, simply because in C, this is implicit, and on the programmer to enforce.
