'round these parts, the way to persuade people of controversial points is proof, not just assertion. So far you haven't offered anything but big talk.

You've got this theory that makes a certain prediction, namely that your posts will be downvoted because everyone but you is an idiot. There is a competing theory which makes the same prediction, namely that your posts will be downvoted because they lack productive content. In order for your theory to beat out the competition, you'll need to find some point where the predictions differ, and then demonstrate that yours is more accurate.

Surely, if we are such fools, and you understand the irrationalities involved so well, you could compose a post which manipulates those corrupt thought-structures into providing you with upvotes?

this is a little ridiculous. The reason you were downvoted is someone didn't like your post. The reason all of the rest of your comments are being downvoted is that people don't like to be questioned. And there's some bandwagon effect in there somewhere. I've never got people to explain anything like this (edit: this method of trying to get an explanation). Maybe you are particularly good at it in real life thanks to body language or something but just in text there's no way you're going to get people to explain themselves this

also this sort of thing:

People, it makes no sense to karma punish me for: Giving people reasons that their karma punishments are unwarranted. Using the word dumb to describe irrational karma distributions. Modifying my feedback in response to further displays of irrational behavior. Not responding to karma incentives in the way you would like me to. Not taking any of this seriously at all.

tends to elicit an "I'LL SHOW YOU, FUCKER", response in people or something, effectively identical, from what I have observed of people.

also, people like their requests for feedback humble and/or "positive."

As for what's wrong with your first comment: Supressing "innapropriate" preferences isn't something I like." I didn't downvote you but it's not like you can't just not read comments. If i'd understood that was what you were doing when i read your comment (as I skipped down the page to the comments I was interested in) I would have downvoted it. I won't now as most of the rest of your downvotes are clearly punishing your demanding an explanation (in an "innapropriate" tone) which no one has bothered doing. (why the fuck is the comment pointing out the non existence of laws which take over behaviour downvoted? and the one it's responding to upvoted?) but I really don't like the idea of trying to suppress comments that have no obvious negative impact. It looks kind of the same to me as the way no one bothered to give you an explanation and just decided to downvote instead. Your post is just saying "I decided not to do that," which is simply an expression of your dislike, with no reasoning given, much as your being downvoted rather than responded to is. Also, it's social policing and signalling taking priority over explaining, to the point where the actual "here is what I don't like" bit that could allow someone to learn something is entirely left out. It wasn't as bad as the response you're receiving though.

edit: I must say, though, the demands of "proof" are ridiculous.