I wouldn't overinterpret the downvotes - it's impossible to know what people were thinking, and the mind tends to arrive at the most irritating, annoying, or hurtful explanation.
The same principle works the other way too - when a comment doesn't contain much information, readers tend to interpret it according to whatever they personally find the most irritating, annoying, or hurtful, and then react to that. Our minds are not our best friends this way.
The (partial) solution to this is to include enough disambiguating information in your comment. For example if your comment had contained enough information to make clear that your question was genuinely curious rather than snarkily dismissive, I doubt it would have gotten downvoted.
It's hard to do that because generally our intention is so clear and transparent to ourselves that it doesn't occur to us to include it in the message. Unfortunately for all of us on the internet, however, intent doesn't communicate itself.
The same principle works the other way too - when a comment doesn't contain much information, readers tend to interpret it according to whatever they personally find the most irritating, annoying, or hurtful, and then react to that. Our minds are not our best friends this way.
The (partial) solution to this is to include enough disambiguating information in your comment. For example if your comment had contained enough information to make clear that your question was genuinely curious rather than snarkily dismissive, I doubt it would have gotten downvoted.
It's hard to do that because generally our intention is so clear and transparent to ourselves that it doesn't occur to us to include it in the message. Unfortunately for all of us on the internet, however, intent doesn't communicate itself.