This is a good question, but I worry you can make this argument about many ideas, and the cost of self-censorship is really not worth it. For example:

• If we talk too much about how much animals are suffering, someone might conclude humans are evil
• If we talk too much about superintelligence, someone might conclude AI is superior and deserves to outlive us
• If we talk too much about the importance of the far future, a maximally evil supervillain could actually become more motivated to increase x-risk

As a semi-outsider working on the fringes of this community, my impression is that EA is way too concerned about what is good/bad to talk about. There are ideas, posts and words with negative EV in the short run, but I feel that's all outweighed by the virtue of vigorous debate and capacity for free thinking.

On a more serious note, I am philosophically concerned about the argument "the possibility of s-risks implies we should actually increase x-risk", and am actively working on this. Happy to talk more if it's of mutual interest.

The solution to the problem of suffering cannot be to eliminate all life because lifeless evolution created life once and it could recreate it, and million years of pain would come along again before another intelligent species like ours re-appear with technical power and has a chance to resolve the problem of suffering by controlling that phenomenon through conscious rational efforts until the end of this universe.