Other comments mentioned CFCs, cloning, chemical weapons, DDT. To that, let's add: Trans fats, Soylent, hydrogenated vegetable oils (butter's still going strong), bisphenol A in food and drink containers, veganism, rare earth metal extraction (and pollution, on US soil). Electric cars (at both the start and the end of the twentieth century!), zip fuel, most types of advanced fission reactor design and probably a couple non-nuclear renewable power plant types as well (up until recently).
The question's kinda paradoxically framed. If everybody just outright rejected the technology from the start, then it didn't get the chance to be all that "disruptive", even if it could have been. That makes it hard to think of good specific examples, but technically feasible and socially disruptive technologies get dropped for lack of interest all the time. If we blindly developed and proliferated every technology, without regard for its consequences and for whether people even want it or if it helps people while keeping harm to a minimum… Obviously that strategy would entail a.. casualty list.
In fact, maybe you could even say the default reponse to disruptive new technologies is "no". It took a lot of true believers and investors/wealth inequality to get ML to the point it's at now. And even then, it's most likely still heavily subsidized (I.E. operating at a loss, economically unviable so far), and the vast majority of "humanity" doesn't really understand, doesn't care about, or actively doesn't want it.
The fact that a relatively tiny portion of society is able to force it onto everybody despite that is a property of currently existing power structures, not an intrinsic feature of humans or of all potentially socially disruptive technologies.