My perceived hostility comes from having to answer a circular question that can only reaffirm itself, "Is suffering better than not suffering?". Of course that one aspect is true, but that's only because it defines itself and allows only one answer. In reality, every living human being, even in the midst of unfathomable circumstances, finds ways to experience joy. There is no ideal situation where not existing is better than existing.

The main problem with this theory of beneficial extinction is that it defines life's meaning as "seeking to not experience suffering", which is absurd. Either redefine it to, "Seek happiness." or, "Seek Experiences to enrich oneself.", both of which nullify the antinatalist sensationalist principals of being incapable of having experiences or seeking happiness.

That said, the very least we can agree to is that creating life in a situation where there need not be any is negligent at best. If you have the choice to have a child you should be prepared to assist it in finding happiness or having experiences, not doing so is actually defined as criminal in modern society, and is very much so punishable. I personally believe this could extend to anyone who would be incapable of experiencing anything or actively seeking happiness, as in those war and poverty stricken areas where there is no happiness to be found. This does not equate to extinction theory being correct, it instead shows us that we need to simply work more on society as a society to improve the overall quality of life.

As for mass murder, if you were to say, trick thousands of people into inhaling a gas that would end their potential decades of suffering by forcing them to suffer for a mere moment, then the "overall suffering" would be minimized, which is the thought process underlying Antinatalism. Cue Godwin's Law.