I found this such a bizarre analogy (responding to pg's point, not directly to you). There can be meaningful difference of opinion and perception on whether or not a sound exists; people literally might not have the physiological equipment to hear it. However, the assertion that "there are things I can't say" (meaning, presumably, "there are things I will experience significant hardship for saying" rather than literally "… things I am physically incapable of saying") is surely proveable by mentioning such a thing. He dismisses this idea, but seems never to explain why he's dismissing it, other than by this analogy, which to me seems false.
If the answer to why you can't say what things can't be said is that merely specifically mentioning their existence brings on the unspeakable consequences, then I would say further: I find it perfectly possible to refer to and defend the right of freedom of speech by defending the expression of ideas with which I vehemently disagree. Hopefully Nazism is a safe enough bugbear to assume that every reasonable person disagrees with it. And yet I think Nazis should be able to speak, and at the same time that they should experience the consequences of that speech; and I feel safe in saying that no-one here will confuse my saying that with support or defence of Nazism. So why can't one of these things that can't be said similarly be named without supporting it?
To carry it even one step further, I agree that, if someone says that there's a high-pitched noise and I don't hear it, then it is rude to deny that they hear anything. But is it rude to ask them what it sounds like (for example, does it sound like something I can hear?), or if they can identify where it comes from, or if they hear it all the time? Maybe that falls under the category of 'demanding' evidence that pg says is rude, but it seems to me to be rather a gathering of evidence that I think is the sort of activity highly valued in this community.
I found this such a bizarre analogy (responding to pg's point, not directly to you). There can be meaningful difference of opinion and perception on whether or not a sound exists; people literally might not have the physiological equipment to hear it. However, the assertion that "there are things I can't say" (meaning, presumably, "there are things I will experience significant hardship for saying" rather than literally "… things I am physically incapable of saying") is surely proveable by mentioning such a thing. He dismisses this idea, but seems never to explain why he's dismissing it, other than by this analogy, which to me seems false.
If the answer to why you can't say what things can't be said is that merely specifically mentioning their existence brings on the unspeakable consequences, then I would say further: I find it perfectly possible to refer to and defend the right of freedom of speech by defending the expression of ideas with which I vehemently disagree. Hopefully Nazism is a safe enough bugbear to assume that every reasonable person disagrees with it. And yet I think Nazis should be able to speak, and at the same time that they should experience the consequences of that speech; and I feel safe in saying that no-one here will confuse my saying that with support or defence of Nazism. So why can't one of these things that can't be said similarly be named without supporting it?
To carry it even one step further, I agree that, if someone says that there's a high-pitched noise and I don't hear it, then it is rude to deny that they hear anything. But is it rude to ask them what it sounds like (for example, does it sound like something I can hear?), or if they can identify where it comes from, or if they hear it all the time? Maybe that falls under the category of 'demanding' evidence that pg says is rude, but it seems to me to be rather a gathering of evidence that I think is the sort of activity highly valued in this community.