Roger's Diffusion of Innovation and Social Constructs

Within the bounds of theory, E.M. Rogers developed an idea called the "Diffusion of Innovation" which states that with the development of any technologies, there will always be seasons of of growth and then disbursement of fascination of an advancement in technology; then a new competitor arises and the cycle starts over again.

The bell chart can be split into four main categories, not including investors. These groups consist of early adapters, who are people usually wealthy enough and more dominantly known to receive the device (lets say the brand new advancement in video technology such as the upcoming PlayStation 5) before it is accessible or rather too expensive for the general public. Exponential growth is found in the Early Majority, also known as Early Adapters, who are the group of people supporting the new released product and buying the new PlayStation 5 within the first releases of the device; they had the PlayStation 5 "before it was cool." The Late Majority or Late Adopters are the people groups who wait a while to adjust towards the new advancements of this product; majority of this group are hesitant to the advancement changes and seek approval of the new device from the Early Majority; "is the product worth my money?" And finally there are the Laggards, who are the most difficult group to accept change. They are content with their ways of life and the only way they will buy into  a product is by statistically tested value or by the peer pressure from the other majority groups

I will concede that that most of the accepting majorities are younger generations, whereas older generations are more hesitant to change. Ultimately, Rogers' theory of technological acceptance stands true to this day; there will always be those who indulge in new advancements, and those who struggle to move on with the times.
Photo Link

The Spirit Behind Joker

In this article released by VOX, the revisits the terrible shooting during the release film of The Dark Night in a movie theater, where the dark nature of the Joker was intuitive to blame.

Before the release of Joaquin Phoenix's Joker movie, protesters continued to push for the Warner Bros. to promote stricter gun laws in hand with the release of this movie; directer Todd Phillips answers back to the crowds stating that the Joker himself is a fictional, comic character in which the movies themselves do not concede to such violence upon others choices and actions. The release of Joker should not be placed in guilt for what the actions of others already have this hatred in their hearts.

"I think there are two chief reasons. One of them is completely unjustified, and one of them is partially justified by things that have happened before. I think the chief reason, and the unjustified reason, that people are focusing on the Joker movie is The Dark Knight Rises and the 2012 mass shooting in Aurora. There’s actually a major misconception: The shooter was not dressing up as the Joker [during the attack on the movie theater]. He was in no way trying to carry out something from the movie. I have never seen any evidence that he was a particular fan of Heath Ledger’s Joker or of that [film] in general. This was misinformation that was put out by a police officer who was interviewed by a couple of newspapers" -Robert Evans.

I concede to this point and support this statement by Evans, yet I conclude that no matter what movie is released from Hollywood, there is always a desired message being portrayed throughout the film towards its intended audience. After watching this film, I was horrified by how brilliant this movie was. Flawless in nature, Phoenix truly portrayed the role of a mentally ill man going through such distress and oppression to an outstanding degree. Phoenix starved himself for this role, damages his body by actually running into traffic and getting a taxi in the film, and claimed in interview that he actually began to go mad while preparing for the role. 

The sense of loss and hopelessness in an individual who has faced all the down in life is an eye opener for most people; one argument to be made is that we should make the effort to recognize those who are oppressed and show them hope. Unfortunately, from a psychological standpoint, there are many people who are undiagnosed and go under radar who experience this portrayal in the film in their own reality. They see and associate the Joker's actions as necessity for their own sanity, there are no political agendas involved. So although I concede that Joker itself holds no responsibility for one's actions, it does not change the fact that the spirit behind the film incites this violence within those who possibly could be afflicted, and it also does not change the fact that several theaters across the nation are considering removing the film from their air times and some even armed by police for the possibility and threat of such cruel actions.