Down voting a discussion that isn't paying anything out is also indicative of striking out to "hurt" rather than simply engaging in the discussion.

Why reject the notion that voting is an expression of opinion? Why pull out the victim card and assume someone is hurt you (and in doing so attempt to delegitimize their actions), rather than respect that they disagree with you, and consider that maybe when intelligent people disagree with you, you are getting something wrong (or at a minimum failing to approach things in a manner that is community- and consensus-building)? Setting aside automated or explicitly strategic voting (clearly neither of which apply here), much of the time people vote for something they like or agree with and vote against something they dislike or disagree with. Do you consider it an attack meant to "hurt" you if people disagree with you or dislike what you say or how you say it?

Most of the responses are "against me" and not even attempting to address my concerns

Some of us feel that the problems with your post and the approach to the subject matter is more important than "your concerns", which frankly are rather trivial. If @ozchartart weren't on the trending page someone else would be. The same rewards would be paid out, and in much the same concentrated manner. Maybe the content of those replacement posts would be "better" but that is really inherently subjective. I'm not particularly a fan of either but I probably slightly consider @ozchartart as bringing more value to the platform than @krnel. Is my opinion "wrong"?