This isn't accidental—it's explicitly stated as its goal. It's a bit like governments banning books because "think of the children!!!11!!!" except nowhere near as big of a deal.

I do not think it's particularly valid to compare equate government "safety" to programming language "safety", and not just because of unsafe blocks. It is generally easier to opt out of writing in a particular programming language than it is to opt out of a government doing a thing.

I agree—that's why i put the "except nowhere near as big of a deal" clause.

In addition, it locks programmers and users into a specific ecosystem, which people get all pissy about when proprietary-software companies do it, yet when Rust does it it's for some reason seen as okay despite being just as much of a hostile tactic.

There are some Rust libraries which export C-usable interfaces, most notably regex, which I believe is actually being trialled as a replacement for Python's re module.

This wasn't what i was referring to—sorry that i didn't make that clear. When i was referring to "a specific ecosystem", i was moreso talking about the toolchain of Cargo, rustdoc, Rustfmt, Clippy, etc. These not only are pretty much the only options for their respective areas of work, and the only ones which the Rust developers will support, but are also conceptually malicious in their own ways by forcing projects to use what's Standard™ instead of what's optimal for their particular situation.

Furthermore, the official community surrounding Rust uses an immoral code of law that allows for infinite punishment to be given to people, allows punishment to be given without a fair trial, and allows punishment for actions committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Rust community.

I mean, I haven't looked at this, but I think most communities informally work this way anyway.

Then they are just as evil. (Though informal guidelines are easier to break when needed, so i guess they have that going for them.)