No, but explaining economics to a business owner is more likely to get through to them than talking about the social benefits. When you try to convince someone of something, you convince them of the benefits to them, not the high-minded benefits to society. We used to understand that.

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.

Yes, you should tailor your communication to the audience, and join a technical debate on a subject when it's valuable to do so.

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.