It's definitely a relevant point. If a large group of people who are not working seem to be predominantly unhappy, that's legitimate information that may be use

It's definitely a relevant point. If a large group of people who are not working seem to be predominantly unhappy, that's legitimate information that may be useful for discussion about universal basic income. You can make a compelling argument that the reason for that unhappiness is not innate to a lack of work, but rather due to the particular idiosyncrasies of the implementation of welfare, but that's not obviously true a priori. The commenter seems to have made this observation in good faith. It seems rude to me that you would insinuate the point is irrelevant and "almost seems trollish" just because you disagree with it, particularly when you did the bare minimum to mount a substantive rebuttal. It's true that we shouldn't conflate the unhappiness associated with welfare with some sort of ennui induced by a lack of productivity; but that doesn't preclude the point you're disagreeing with, which could still be true.