I think the site also encourages discussion. I don't ask about downvotes if people have a comment response. If they are downvoting without any comment replies, this seems to undermine the spirit of the site.

Screw the site guidelines - drive-by downvoting this comment is highly suspicious, and cowardly.

I can't even begin to imagine the bubble you must live in to ascribe words like suspicion and cowardice to someone clicking a button on a forum even most software developers in the world have never even heard of.

You could try. I'd assume it was downvoted by folks who perpetuate said double-talk. If there was a defense, they'd have articulated it. But, since anonymous downvoting is easier and less risky, that's what happens. Silencing the discussion about downvotes is a meta downvote that we shouldn't accept just because it's in the guidelines.

That may be, but the guidelines have a point. The original comment was interesting. Now it's just a distracting side conversation about downvotes.

That's only because you broke the guidelines and commented to create a generic tangent.

My edit to ask about why I was being downvoted is based on curiosity - a key pillar of this site. If people have a divergent opinion strong enough to downvote, then I would like to read it to understand more. Furthermore, my comment was not about comment voting, but about identifying and understanding that opposing position.

I out, since it seems you're just trolling on a tangent instead of commenting on the pertainate topic.

I'm not trolling. I'm trying to improve discourse. Doesn't mean I'm right (as my own comment downvotes indicate) but that was my intention.

I'm trying to improve discourse by fighting against the downvote. It's my opinion it harms discourse significantly. It's low signal, and not constructive. It has an obvious chilling effect on dissent. Nothing upholds echo chambers more than the downvote.