Instead of talking about the flag why aren't we talking about the issue behind the protest

I've heard this said over and over by people on the side of the kneelers across social media and other outlets. The very obvious answer to why the predominant coverage at the moment is over the flag and anthem is that, as they've admitted, they've chosen to protest a symbol and ceremony that actually doesn't have any relation to their claimed grievance. But the other observation is that we actually have been. For several years now.

The protesters and their supporters are peddling a narrative that they refuse to recognize is in contention. They operate on the premise that their position is fundamentally true and undeniable and that anyone who disagrees is doing so dishonestly in an effort to maintain a system of "oppression" and "murder" of blacks by police due to support for systematic racism.

If they want to have a conversation, they have to be able to recognize that their premise is not universally accepted nor is it legitimately proven. They also have to be willing to accept counterarguments that make them uncomfortable as well. Concession and recognition of opposing viewpoints as sincere and worthy of give and take is a precondition to any two opposing sides having a meaningful "conversation." And this conversation dominated news coverage throughout the previous years following the highly publicized incidents of police shootings. They were openly discussed on news networks nightly as well as across internet forums of all types. Yet they play dumb and pretend that those who disagree with the protests are hiding from or refuse to discuss the issue behind the protests, which is a manifest falsehood.

Effectively, counter viewpoints are flatly rejected by the crowd that peddles the narrative that police are actively killing blacks unjustly in alarming numbers with racial malice. They then perpetuate vague and unquantifiable accusations of systematic white privilege and racism, some of which is even "subconscious," as their retort to arguments critical of their claims. They then proceed to distract from their argument by engaging in theatrics that don't present a clear argument and doesn't encourage a substantive discussion but rather provokes a response to their provocative demonstrations. And then turn around and complain that their message isn't being heard or is being deliberately twisted.

So the question is, do they actually want a conversation or do they rather demand that everyone submit to their unsubstantiated and conspiratorial narrative without recognizing the validity of any opinions but their own? I for one am perfectly happy to discuss their accusations, but I've seen nothing whatsoever from their side that indicates reciprocity. It looks to me that they are quite content with engaging in perpetual theatrics with no end in sight. And how can a meaningful dialogue take place if one side refuses to recognize as legitimate arguments to the contrary?