I faced really strong criticism lately for criticizing (in the context of C++) a Safe C++ proposal that basically copies Rust into C++.
With all good and bad things this entails.
It seems there is a push from some people (that I hope it is not successful in its current shape, I personally find it a wrong approach) to just bifurcate C++ type system and standard library.
What I found a lot of is literally, intellectual dishonesty in some of the arguments to push in that direction.
Not that it is not a possible direction, but claims like: "there is no other way", "it is the only feasible solution", etc. without exploring other alternative, from which Swift/Hylo value semantics/subscripts (subscripts is basically controlled references for mutation without a full borrow checker) and adding compile-time enforced law of exclusivity semantics without a new type system are possible (and better, IMHO) alternatives... well, you can see the thread.
There seems to be a lot of obsession as "the only right way is the Rust way" and everything else is directly discardable by authors and some people supporting them.
1) It's very assertive without having a lot of experience or a track record.
2) It's extremely online, filled with anime references and Twitter jokes, obsessed with cuteness, etc...
3) It's full of whipper-snappers with 6 months of experience who think they can explain your job to you, who have been doing it for 30 years.
IME many arguments around Rust aren't focused on its technical properties, but boil down to "I just plain don't like you people."
If Rust can successfully become "boring", a lot of the opposition will go away.