My response may not be satisfactory. I think you and others are talking about "Reality" and some of us are talking about reality. Either way is there any benefit to denying Reality (reality)?
Yes, I think there are benefits. If by "reality" you mean our everyday assumption of everyday things, I think even they deserve the benefit of the doubt..
Consider the application to law and justice. If we had the death penalty in this country, we may have killed a woman for having been the victim of a dingo stealing her baby. Initial understanding of reality: a dingo took the baby. After much research of what "really" happened: there was no dingo, it was a murder. Many years later, an even deeper understanding of "reality": a dingo took the baby. The point is, people were and still are far too ready to accept the obvious basic everyday reality as an objective "Reality".
Time complicates matters even further. Yesterday there were eggs in my fridge. Today there are not. Those eggs are now these words I'm typing and part of how I would attempt to define those eggs as separate from me. When I started typing this paragraph, some atoms of the computer were part of me, and vice versa. Forensic science relies heavily on the constant interchange between "me" and "everything else".
So I think it makes practical sense to begin with the assumption that there is no objective reality, your subjective one is your best approximation, and you should use the tools at your disposal to determine which aspects of your subjective reality are most compatible with an ideal objective one. Checking your observations against those of others is one of those tools, but Sunday morning in the Bible Belt demonstrates the limitations of that. In fact, nothing better demonstrates that a bit of "just because it's obvious to everybody doesn't make it true" could go a long way.