Source is probably years of watching Rachel Maddow’s Russiagate conspiracy theorizing.

A comment replying "Source?" is not contributing to the conversation, and criticising someone for writing more than 1 word in reply is also bullshit.

It really gets on my wick when people thing saying "Source?" is a sufficient challenge in online conversation. We're not writing academic papers here, we're chatting shit on the internet.

If you have an argument to make, make it.

If you have a counter-argument, make it.

If all you want to do is shit on someone for not writing an academic article with citations[^1] but don't actually contribute anything yourself, go suck on a turd.

[^1]: Wow, look, lemmy has a citation function! If only the hyperlinks actually worked...

However, it should be said, @Shalakushka@kbin.social has probably got things wrong. I don't think Russia provided emails from the Republican party. The argument doesn't even make sense - why would Russia provide arguments on both sides if they wanted one side, their Republican tiny-handed man, to get into the White House?

Rather, what happened, as I recall, was that Assange also received intel on Russian corruption from somewhere else, then elected not to publish it. That is perhaps dodgy, but at the same time the reasoning I recall him giving was that it is obvious that Russia is corrupt - it simply was not newsworthy.