I try not to submit to conferences if I can avoid it. It's like you say, reviewers are looking for a reason to reject. I don't understand what makes the difference since it's usually the same people reviewing in both conferences and journals, but somehow journal reviewers do a much better job. Some journals have a fast turnaround even, and still the quality of reviewing is considerably better.

My second journal paper got rejected with encouragement to resubmit. Half the reason for that was because the reviewer had, I think, genuinely misunderstood the description of an experiment, so I re-wrote it in painstaking detail. I had a long section where I hammered out a proof of complexity spanning three pages, with four lemmas and a theorem, and the reviewer waded through all that like a hero, and caught errors and made recommendations for improvement. They made a new round of recommendations when I resubmitted. That paper took three rounds of revisions to publish (reject, resubmit, accept with minor revisions) but it got 80% better every time I had to revise it. I wish there was another couple of rounds! It was exhausting, and I bet much more so to the reviewer, but it was 100% worth it.

And yeah, I absolutely do my best to review like that myself. Even in conferences, which probably seems really weird to authors. But, hey, be the change you want to see.