Why are there so many meta questions about a supposed recent uptick in downvoting, closing, and/or bad questions themselves?
Also, why are these questions so presumptuous, assuming that there are lots of bad questions? Or assuming that the rate of closing or downvoting is steadily increasing lately?
Also, why aren't any of these meta questions reflecting on the possibility that their meta question is itself closable as non-constructive (speculative) or too local (depending on that one person being downvoted), offering only the existence of their question as justification for their meta post?
Do you suppose that some of these meta questions are rhetorical? Or that some of these questions are thinly (or not so thinly) veiled peeving?
There is definitely a grain of truth in the assumptions by the questions, stated as bald assertions but with little obvious self-reflection.
Actually we probably could take the energy to turn around/edit questions that don't fit our stated rules for downvoting/closing and just make something substantive out of them, but would that teach the author anything? And why do these meta questions end up eliciting really long answers that express a truth that addresses the question but that's a lot of work and probably won't be appreciated anyway?