A few ramifications of the new taunting penalty take it from the realm of the lame to the untenable:
1) It is, among other things, a bunch of old white guys imposing their cultural norms on a bunch of young black guys. Different people laugh, cry, kiss, pray, etc. differently. Why should sports be different? It is, broadly speaking, the equivalent of Episcopalians going into AME churches with Quiet Please signs they've borrowed from a PGA event, or Presbyterians going into a Baptist church and ejecting people who clap during the service.
2) Following from item 1, it seems an attempt to legislate a style of play, almost like awarding more points for a solid rushing TD than for a flashy, ephemeral passing TD. If individual programs want to play in a certain style, they can hire coaches who coach that style. The level of swagger that, Jimmy Johnson tolerated as opposed to, say Tom O'Brien indicates how much control a program has over its approach to taunting. Programs that do not want to be taunted should make an effort not to give up long touchdowns.
3) Philosophically, a rule that you would not your team to win because of is not a rule that belongs in a game. We all gripe about calls and noncalls that shaped the outcome of games. For years. But who among us would be happy to see a victory preserved because an opposing CB shushed the fans running back a pick-six? Defeat would be preferable to the ridicule that wold accompany victory on those terms.
4) In a worst-case scenario, it threatens the integrity of the game, in that running up the score is a form of taunting. Would teams get flagged for continuing to pass when up by more than a certain number of points? If so, could a trailing team hang around and steal a game because the leading team was forced to play not to hurt feelings?