One thing I have been thinking about:
Identities are not single-unitary: you are never only (for example) working-class. You may well be black/white & working-class heritage, middle-class mother & straight/lesbian, etc.
At different points, your mosaiced/nodal social-political identity will place you in quite complicated positions with regard to a power, particularly with regard to the power position of your interlocutor. Moreover, we all have an element of identity that is voiced/lived through the discourses we enfold/live through/espouse (even if we espouse them through silence and non-engagement).
So, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that you are speaking with someone who has been disempowered educationally because of their social-class history, whose non-engagement with a particular source of information is both caused by very real, negative acts of power and is an ongoing act of resistance to that disabling, disempowering act of educational-cultural disempowerment BUT to point out that this ongoing non-engagement ultimately acts to reproduce a structure that is disempowering many others at this particular moment and will continue to do so unless there is some kind of intervention.
In that situation, it has to be OK to point out that the 'non-engagement' is an action, right now, in this present moment, that is serving to oppress you, and other like you. The non-engagement may be rooted in disempowerment but it is serving to disempower you, and others. It's not neutral.
I think the 'squeamishness' is rooted in false notions of unitary social and political identity (and you can trace it back to older notions of specific groups being the annointed agents of history) as well as feelings of pity and embarrassment about acknowledging one's own privilege. None of which is terribly helpful as an end-point - but probably needs to be worked through.
There is also a difficulty with finding 'the words to say it'. These are real conversations, with real people: patronising, aggressive, distantiating language is not going to work. The aim of any such discussion is essentially pragmatic: it has to have an effect, to work.
Everything I have just written is, I think, an example of slightly crap, distantiating language. I've used terms that are quite niche: they are a good short-cut to self-expression but, precisely because many of them derive from quite a niche location, they fail to communicate more widely. That's a failure, right there.
I saw a great example of communication on one of the EU Referendum threads. If I had had any sense, I would have pasted it in an email to myself.