I'd rather be honest, but non-insulting, personally.

I've told managers that plans were not in their or the company's best interests. I wouldn't come up with some coded way to be insulting without the other person knowing it. I'd be more likely to say, "I believe more research should be done on that particular subject. From what I know, it's likely to cost more than it's value to implement the plan in its current form." or something like that. It's non-insulting, it's honest, and it puts it in terms that managers can understand.

On the other hand, I don't take it personally if I have to implement something I disagree with. If I disagree strongly enough, because the plan will have a cost to me that I don't think is worth my salary, I'll just leave.

I haven't yet been told to do something unethical/illegal, that I couldn't convince the manager involved was exactly that, and get cancelled. If I ever am in a position where doing such is necessary in order to stay employed, I'll just get busy job hunting and not do what I'm being asked. But I don't think that's what you're writing about. I take the article as being about technically inefficient/idiotic/useless policies or plans.

With those, I judge the cost to me vs my salary, or the cost to the company vs the possible ROI of the plan or policy. I'm good at debating either of those issues.