I think that classical doctrine says that having (holding) a view of self (i.e. "me") is a cause of suffering; and so is attachment to impermanent things (i.e. "mine"); and therefore we're advised to view things as "not me" and "not mine".
BUT a view like "nothing exists, nothing matters", or something like that, is "wrong view":
And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...
I suppose the non-self doctrine is a form of detachment; but saying, "I don't have a fixed view of 'self'", is not the same as saying, "you don't exist" or "you're unable to suffer" -- I suppose that the former is "right" but that the latter is wrong.
Also Buddhism (perhaps especially Mahayana) has the concept of "sentient beings" -- feelings including pain and/or suffering.
At the risk of adding a side-track to the main topic (the question in the OP) I think that classical doctrine warns against having a self-view that one is a "being" (Vajira Sutta); and, that "becoming" is something to avoid ("bhava", i.e. the 10th of the 12 nidanas, see e.g. The Paradox of Becoming).
The point is though that, regardless of how you view or don't view your own "self", there are people in the world, sentient beings, who are able to suffer, able to not suffer, and so on.
ALSO you ought to remember sila (i.e. virtue, ethics). It's foundational. It includes the 5 (or more) precepts, which involve being harmless or acting harmlessly, in various ways: not causing harm. And it's arguably more complicated than that for lay-people (see e.g. Sigalovada Sutta or something this book), though of course it's also quite involved for monks or nuns (i.e. see the Vinaya).
Also relevant to the question are the Brahmaviharas (described here as "the answer to all situations arising from social contact", see also here).
I guess this answer isn't practical, I'm just hoping to share a view of what the doctrine says about views. I think the classic view is that it's unwise to have any view of self at all -- and that "I exist" and "I don't exist" are both examples of self-views (see also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? for more).
As for "nothing exists" or "no-one is really suffering" there's quite a short Zen story on that subject which may be apposite:
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?”
I think that this topic is important too -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?