ANTIWAR

The arguments about war and dissent in the U.S. are just as relevant today as they were during the Progressive Era. Back then, people who opposed America’s involvement in World War I faced serious consequences, like being thrown in jail for their beliefs. While that level of punishment isn’t something we see today, I’ve noticed that antiwar voices still tend to get pushed aside.

The videos we watched really made me think about how dissenters were treated during World War I. The first video showed that even though the First Amendment is supposed to protect our freedom of speech, it wasn’t really there for people who were against the war. They were imprisoned and silenced. That caught my attention because it demonstrates how easily our rights can be violated when the nation is facing difficulties. It also made me ponder how likely it would be for anything similar to occur again.

In the second video, the focus shifted to the tension between the government and people who oppose its military actions. What’s crazy is that while today’s dissenters aren’t being jailed, their opinions still don’t get much attention in mainstream media. It's frustrating that we don’t hear more antiwar voices in the news, and it’s clear that these perspectives are often overlooked.

When I checked out websites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative, it became clear that these sites are filled with strong antiwar perspectives, but we rarely see them highlighted in major news outlets. It really got me thinking, why are these views so hard to find unless you go looking for them? It almost feels like mainstream media is more comfortable promoting narratives that align with certain political interests rather than giving a platform to dissenting voices.

This underrepresentation seriously limits our capacity to understand the big picture. By keeping antiwar voices out of the conversation, we are not given a full picture of the problems surrounding US military operations. We are also more likely to accept these interventions without giving them careful thought or without fully weighing any potential long-term effects if that critical attitude is not there.

The easiest approach to undermine opposition is one of the main lessons I learned from this. Our freedom to express ourselves is meant to be safeguarded by the First Amendment, but there are less evident ways in which this protection can be compromised, like when the media silences opponents of war. It doesn't follow that voices aren't being silenced in other ways just because people aren't being imprisoned for speaking up. Furthermore, if we are only hearing arguments from one side of the dispute, we will not fully understand the problems.

We can't just rely on the information provided by the mainstream media but also actively seek out alternative viewpoints. If we don't, we can miss out on significant opinions that could question the status quo and encourage us to consider war and its effects more carefully. Because of this, it's important that we pay attention to who is included and excluded. We might never fully understand warfare or the entire cost of American military interventions if we don't open up to a range of perspectives!

Diffusion

The Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) Theory, was founded by E.M. Rogers in 1962. DOI is the process by which an idea or product gradually gains traction in society. The theory helps us explain why some people adopt new technology quickly while others take a long time or occasionally refuse to adopt it at all. It goes beyond simply noting the apparent trend of new advancements. I find this theory especially intriguing because of how widely applicable it is. It can be used to describe the diffusion of everything from significant cultural movements to cutting-edge technological devices used today.

DOI focused on 5 major categories below.

1. Innovators: These are the people who are always the first to try something new. They’re often seen as risk-takers and adventurous, and they thrive on being at the front of change.

2. Early Adopters: This group tends to be made up of leaders or influencers who are open to change. They are not always the first in line, but they’re quick to embrace new ideas when they see the potential.

3. Early Majority: These individuals aren’t leaders in innovation, but they’re willing to adopt something new as long as it’s already proven to work for others. They need some reassurance before they take the jump into things.

4. Late Majority: This group is more skeptical and cautious. They typically wait until an innovation is widely accepted before they feel comfortable enough to give it a try themselves.

5. Laggards: These are the people who are most resistant to change. They’re often tied to tradition and only adopt something new when there’s no other option or when it’s forced on them by circumstances.

What really gets me about this theory is how perfectly it applies to so many things in our lives. For example, if you think about social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok, you can see how this process plays out in real life. The innovators are the people who signed up for these platforms before anyone even knew about them, just because they love trying new things. Then come the early adopters, the influencers who brought attention to the platforms and made them seem cool. The early majority followed soon after, once they saw their friends and peers using it successfully. The Late Majority only jumped in when it felt like everyone they knew was already on it, and finally, the Laggards either never joined or reluctantly made accounts just to stay connected with family or for work.

Another aspect of this theory that I like is how it’s not just about tech. It can also be applied to the spread of ideas. A great example of this is the women’s suffrage movement in the U.S., which eventually led to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. When you look at this historical milestone through the lens of Rogers’ theory, you can almost visualize the timeline of adoption. The innovators were the first few activists who began fighting for women’s rights long before it was a mainstream cause. The Early Adopters were the leaders in communities and political figures who began to support the movement. The Early Majority started to catch on as the movement gained traction, and the Late Majority finally came around as public opinion changed. The Laggards, however, were those who resisted the change and only accepted it once it was the law.

When thinking about any new innovation, whether it’s a tech gadget, a service, or an idea, it’s important to realize that different people have different adoption timelines. That’s one of the big takeaways from DOI. And not everyone embraces change at the same pace. It’s interesting to see how it takes time for an idea or product to gain traction and become part of the mainstream, and even more interesting to think about the different psychological and social reasons behind why people adopt or don’t adopt new things. For me, understanding this theory opens up new ways to think about how innovations spread, why certain technologies become part of our daily lives, and why others fade.

This theory is not only useful academically but also in real-world business and marketing strategies. When promoting a new product or idea, understanding which group I am trying to reach and how to appeal to their specific needs and hesitations can make a huge difference. Especially if I am dealing with risk-taking innovators or tradition-bound laggards, the way I approach each group has to be tailored to their mindset. The more I think about it, the more I see how DOI is everywhere, and it’s exciting to be able to apply it to so many different aspects of life.