It's rather wuss behaviour to tell people they are doing wuss behaviour by creating those clear societal rules. That creates a clear image of a person looking like a neanderthal, categorically leaving out people who wont comply.
I think the article is scabrous
Those who don't comply often aren't strong enough to support society. We pick on wuss behaviors as much as we pick on dangerous and selfish behaviors, as well as those who lack skill and strength. If it's been shunned by society, there's a good chance that the people that enact that behavior are not strong enough to support the community, if it's been praised, the opposite applies.
If a social group shuns you for being weak, lazy or fat, then if you're an average person, you're going to be forced to do something about it if you want to have the support of everyone, and then when the time comes, and circumstances beyond your control force you into a terrible situation, you'll be strong enough, fit enough, smart enough (etc.) to survive.
Like most systems that are applied to large numbers of people, there are cases where it doesn't work out well, like smoking, which was reinforced because all of the best people out there were identified by it, but the same procedure can be used to unravel the problem, if smoking becomes perceived as something that wimpy, pathetic retards do, not many people would ever start doing it. This change is already noticeable, in some younger social groups, they shun smokers and drug abusers, they follow "one life, drug free".
If everyone becomes tolerant towards being weak, fat, shy, lazy and selfish people, society will become a teeming mess of maccas abusing, conservative pushovers... kinda like Grimace