Probably mostly because of that.

Not that the other points are necessarily easy to follow since they're not well explained. If knowledge of why some type was hard to know or had to be googled (or for example noting what one of those types is) was presented, then people might have been able to respond to those points.

Instead it reads as "it's hard, I used it and it's hard, and I had to do some stuff I didn't like, and so my impression is it's just a bunch of people faffing off and it's too hard to take seriously", which isn't really useful for a discussion, and additionally is dismissive. Every one of the criticisms presented could be said about C without any change because no actual concrete details are provided.

It's not like Rust is perfect, there are many valid criticisms of it that have real examples and make useful points. Those comments probably deserve your defense more than this one.