I'm not trying to prove that, I'm trying to get a few people to think that it is probably the case, there's a slight difference. I think that the irrationality of the commenters is the most logical and the simplest way for anyone to make sense of the reputation patterns I've seen so far despite the lack of good warranted criticism.

It's not as though irrationality is incredibly rare or that I should have low priors on the probability that humans use social signalling mechanisms in an irrational manner, after all. The fact that out of all the people here none of them have conceded that they are irrational would actually seem to lend a bit more credence to my belief than it already has.

I agree that I cannot do both. However, I anticipate downvotes even if I were to conclusively prove my argument with all the might and power that Science and Bayes have to offer the universe. If my argument is correct and the commenters respond irrationally to criticism, then of course I should anticipate downvotes despite the accuracy of my criticism. That's kind of the entire point.