I’m sorry, I’m not sure what to make of this: whether or not GR (our current ToG) is correct, and, if not, what’s missing or how it might be wrong is a hugely important active field of research.
As is, of course, trying to integrate QM and GR.
They aren’t ossified, they are hard. Conceptually hard. Mathematically hard. And a few other hards.
I think it's reasonable to resist that on the grounds that humans aren't gravity, no one is going to come up with newton's laws of how to treat each other. These things aren't facts of the universe that can be revealed to us, they are decisions we must make using our own resources. Debate is one of those resources, but not the only one, not even the most valuable one, not one that is appropriate at all times in all places for all ideas.
Edit: By the way, if it's good for society, and not for you, there should be laws about it. That's why the eugenicists in the early 1900's (who believed that racism was a social good) enforced Jim Crow Laws: businesses often refused to discriminate unless the law forced them.
I think the technique in the article is best used in situations where you specifically do not want to do so. When there's no value for you in the debate, or you will only be giving legitimacy to a discredited and harmful idea.
Saying "we don't do that here" is definitely a bit of a power play and you wouldn't use it if you truly needed to convince the other party to believe the thing. If you merely need them to act on it though, and you have the power to pull it, it's fine for that.
Similarly, we used to be interested in showing people that racism was bad. Anti-racism educators and consultants would talk about the economic benefits of widening your market or your employee pool. Now that we instead call people "racist" to shut down discussion, actual racists are gaining ideological footholds, and lots of people are suspicious of the people who call others "racist."
People are not stupid. If you want them to agree with you, you should not talk down to them.