Consume Product

It's mocking those who ask for sources for fundamental axioms ("1+1=2" "UMM, SOURCE???") or in bad faith as a way to undermine the legitimacy of an argument. You provide them with a source but then they reject it based on who published it, or they'll deny that it says what it says. It's essentially a deflection tactic so that the argument no longer centers around the point you were originally arguing, but rather puts you on the defensive by trying to get you to waste time defending sources they were never going to accept, even if the sources were legitimate. That's why the copypasta also cycles through the usual kneejerk fallacies (appeal to education, NAXALT, etc.) that these sophists use to handwave the entire argument in spite of any sources actually provided.