Witty notes that many philosophical problems are “[m]isunderstandings concerning the use of words, caused, among other things, by certain analogies between the forms of expression in different regions of language.” For the later Wittgenstein, many philosophical conundrums are dissolved by having a clear understanding of the inner workings of the language used, related to its pertinent context, and arranging the information and knowledge accessible to us in different patterns and perspectives. So, certain philosophical propositions are simply a misuse of language out of its context and the limits of its meaning, often not actually problems at all when framed differently. So, “Language sets everyone the same traps; it is an immense network of easily accessible wrong turnings.”

So, knowing the limits of language allows us to be aware of when we have twisted ourselves into a semantic knot that can be untied be reframeing, or ignoring a proposition or question. He isn't saying lets not try to understand the world and communicate it through language. Rather, he may be saying that we have no other option so lets do so with a better understanding of the tools with which we attempt such a task.

Our means of conveying our mental states, propositions etc. is interpreted by others who share a similar life world, reconciling what they see me doing/saying and what it correlates with. We do interpret what we see and hear which is seen clearly when we get things wrong: when he said 'turn left' he meant your left. I am not proposing W meant another layer between a sensation or mental state etc. and aforemention interpretation, as distinct level of experience.
But I think you are right, Witt wouldn't suggest that we interpret our own mental states etc. - "There are not meanings going through my mind in addition to the verbal expressions; the language is itself the vehicle of thought”. But, we don't have to agree with everything Wittgenstein wrote and, strangely enough, there are different 'interpretations' of what he said.

And I agree with the point about W and an objective reality. But I do get the sense that W and other apparent 'anti-philosophers', wanted to counter the search for an objective meaning and understanding that many philosophers tried to find. And I agree with this notion, objective reality has an impact on me whether I know it or not... it matters: e.g. before TB was discovered we still died from it, even if I called it consumption - my knowing it as TB does not change the disease but it has changed how we treat it and affected my reality. So, objective reality does impact us whether we can discuss it 'rationally' or not. But our understanding of this reality does itself impact reality - whether we know how or not.

In short, "what counts . . . is what you can get others to accept" is a tongue in cheek way of saying that subjective visions of reality are objectively significant. This is not to say that objective reality does not matter. Rather, that to rationally talk about the world as it impacts on humans, and how humans impact on the world (as if the are separate), we need to include in our vision the subjective apprehension of the world. Again, this is not saying that there is no objective reality, but apprehending an objective reality includes accounting for subjective knowledge which can knowingly or unknowingly affect the world.