If the media or you wanna demonstrate that Trump's statements on this are false,
That's not how burden of proof works. Trump is the one claiming something happened, or is happening. It is up to him to provide evidence. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is that something did not happen, or is not happening. It is impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist. I can't prove there are no rainbow-colored elephants. But if you claimed there were, the burden of proof would be on you.
You really think most Americans know that they are being sold to? Diamond rings, the latest iPhone, three cars per family, the list goes on and on. Americans are really good at one thing: buying whatever our corporate overlords tell us we can't live without. The common man even willingly takes part in the marketing, retweeting things, liking posts, etc.
It's not just things either. Look at policies that have been sold to us through the years: the mortgage interest deduction, unforgivable student debt, tipping, mandatory union dues, the war on drugs/terror. These were marketed as great ways to stimulate the economy or attain/protect the American Dream (TM). Most Americans don't realize how stupid it all is, and that they've been had by some very wealthy and powerful people. It goes all the way to the top. Officials are constantly trying to oversell their position. They sell their budget proposal or nominee or pet boogeyman, and the proletariat is supposed to lap it up. We have a president who does a Jedi mind trick, and somehow people are suddenly no longer interested in seeing his tax returns. Instead we get sold a line about the Lugenspresse (and holy shit the alt-right openly calls it that) making it up that Trump promised to release his returns if he became POTUS.
We get sold to all the time, and it is more nefarious than a few strategically placed web ads. I'd be perfectly content with a world where the only things people are trying to sell me are useful items I'd be interested in purchasing. Instead we have this hurricane of 24-7 BS coming from everywhere, and every marketer has an angle.
Slightly off-topic, but you have an interesting point. People need to stop getting so butt hurt if they don't have any direct reason to be. The ultra-sensitive person you are referring to used to be what was meant by "SJW." People overreacting to a perceived injustice where none existed. For instance my brother gets offended when people use the word "waitress." That's just stupid; nobody cares. (Of course, he could have been feigning offense just to elicit laughs... not sure.)
In fact, sometimes the overreaction is more offensive than the actual original event. For instance, when Trump used the perfectly acceptable phrase "blood coming out of her eyes" to mean "very angry and agressive" (which I think comes from horned toads), he became unsure of his usage and changed it to "wherever." It was pretty clear he was just not sure what the correct idiom was, and didn't want to sound stupid for getting it wrong. Unfortunately, SJW's assumed he was talking about menstruation. Nobody (at least not any guy) was thinking that, until the press started saying it. I'll bet Trump was just as surprised as anybody at the interpretation they put on his words. While Trump said some pretty horrible things over the course of the campaign, this was clearly an overblown response by people trying to make him look bad. (before you accuse me of any sort of ideology, please go through my post history)
The problem is that right-wing nut jobs like my buddy now use "SJW" to refer to anybody who disagrees with him on a social issue, or sometimes as a mythical straw man. That has made people like me become averse to the pejorative sense of the abbreviation. In fact, since it has taken on the broader meaning of "not an asshole," I gladly embrace the label. I've even posted on Slashdot that people should strive to become warriors for social justice. It's sort of like the opposite of what happened to the word "hacker." It used to have a good connotation, and now it has a bad one.
Now there is a caveat. It's something that caught me rather by surprised. Apparently there is a sizeable portion of the population who "just roll with it" even though they are deeply offended. I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm about to go way off the rails, so bear with me. I heard a story about a lady who did studies on people who cat call. One of the reasons they continue doing it is because nobody -- literally nobody -- has ever told them they were offended by it. He considered himself to be paying them a compliment. Whereas the women interviewed in the study were afraid to confront the people catcalling because the majority of them thought that would lead to physical or sexual assault. How fucked up is that. You have two people, both of them making terribly wrong assumptions about the state of mind of the other person. Honestly, I don't know which one I find more offensive: that guys think cat-calling is a legit compliment, or that a majority of women think random Joe-on-the-street wants to rape them. Like I said, I'm off the rails... sorry.
I guess the upshot is that maybe SJW's feel like they see an injustice somebody else is unwilling to talk about. Maybe the best answer is to have an open conversation with people that share different world views. See if your $MINORITY$ friend really has a problem with $PERCEIVED_INJUSTICE$, then act accordingly.
Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten