The comment was correctly flagged dead for being flamebait.
What facts do we need here? That the program exists? I doubt that's in dispute.
>It’s also highly irrational to suggest the government is paying people to sit at home, since they are not.
1. I think the "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." guideline[1] applies here. The weaker interpretation you seem to be using is "the government's unemployment policy was deliberately designed to get people to stay at home" (as opposed to providing safety net), but the stronger interpretation would be "the government is effectively paying people to stay at home by enacting a policy that gives people money, but will withdraw it should they find work".
2. An argument could be made that the government literally wants people to stay home, as a matter of policy. After all, there would be much less people complying with stay-at-home orders if they ran out of cash, couldn't buy food, and had to find a job.
>for being flamebait.
I fail to see how that's the case. If the commenter called the people on unemployment "lazy" or whatever, you may have a point, but they didn't.
That might be the intent, but that's irrelevant to the actual distortionary effects that it causes on the job market that gp is talking about.