The Rust community is firm about technical correctness, like any good systems programming project. And, like any good and ambitious systems programming project, technical correctness is nonobvious and no one person is going to be right about everything all the time, because there's entirely too much to know and too much to keep track of.
Unlike many systems programming projects out there, the Rust community has an aversion to screaming matches, personality cults, and other attempts to enforce technical correctness via dominance tactics (not only because they're awful, but also because they don't work - see the things Ulrich Drepper got wrong in glibc, and Linus Torvalds got wrong in Linux, because people could not tell them that they were wrong). Responses to technically incorrect claims are usually firm but gentle, technically straightforward and non-insulting. If someone persists in those claims, they will not find a constant willingness to argue.
It is entirely possible that you have seen observations that were not correct, valid, and legitimate, made by people who are expecting to be told they are wrong in the ways that the old glibc community or the Linux community would tell them that they are wrong, and never took a quiet and friendly correction seriously.
As a member of the Rust community, I value your opinion, however I am not at all sure where you've observed the above described behaviour.
The Rust community is the first one I joined without fears of being put down by the community because of my lack of experience.
The IRC channel is among the most helpful of any programming language I've seen so far, users.rust-lang.org gets multiple helpful responses to practically any question and the subreddit is very helpful for keeping up with the latest projects and take in community input.
I also observed that the Rust core team and community are very aware of its current shortcomings and are working on them with the community via the RFC process.
It's also very easy to contribute, you don't have to sign any CLA etc., and a member of the core team will even mentor you if you wish.
It would be helpful if you offered some concrete examples instead of being this generic.
I think I was being unclear since I think you're agreeing with me. As long as you're not insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong, you will see a friendly and patient and helpful and vocal community. And, fortunately, most people are like that.
There are a few people who think they need to argue loudly and harshly to be listened to (possibly because they've learned that that works in other projects). Those are the folks who are likely to see little patience but also little argument; they'll get downvoted on Reddit and ignored on IRC. Which is good for the community, since any effort spent arguing with them can be spent working with people who are actually there to learn.
The easiest example to see might be when people show up on IRC picking a fight (whether against something Rust does, or technically in favor and deriding some other language). They'll get one reply saying "Yes, but there are always tradeoffs and other languages are great too", one reply saying they're off-topic, and no more engagement. Which is not to say you can't show up on IRC asking for a language feature! As long as you don't say that anyone who leaves the feature out is stupid -- and again, most people don't say that -- you'll get a helpful response.
Unlike many systems programming projects out there, the Rust community has an aversion to screaming matches, personality cults, and other attempts to enforce technical correctness via dominance tactics (not only because they're awful, but also because they don't work - see the things Ulrich Drepper got wrong in glibc, and Linus Torvalds got wrong in Linux, because people could not tell them that they were wrong). Responses to technically incorrect claims are usually firm but gentle, technically straightforward and non-insulting. If someone persists in those claims, they will not find a constant willingness to argue.
It is entirely possible that you have seen observations that were not correct, valid, and legitimate, made by people who are expecting to be told they are wrong in the ways that the old glibc community or the Linux community would tell them that they are wrong, and never took a quiet and friendly correction seriously.