Reflecting on the past two decades, it’s clear that society’s attitude toward conspiracy theorists has shifted. For years, people holding alternative views were often dismissed outright, sometimes ridiculed or marginalized. However, recent events across social, political, and health-related spheres have highlighted how some theories initially labeled as fringe have later found partial validation or at least sparked legitimate debate. Personally, I experienced several conversations where addressing someone 'on autopilot' — repeating fixed ideas or widely believed myths — proved challenging. It often felt like engaging in a cycle of unchanging perspectives. This reminded me of the image caption 'POV: you’re talking to someone who’s still on autopilot,' which perfectly captures the frustration of trying to have open discussions with those deeply entrenched in their beliefs. Over time, I learned that instead of outright dismissal, approaching such topics with empathy and curiosity is more constructive. The key is to foster spaces where critical thinking is encouraged, and questions can be explored without judgment. Sometimes, the so-called 'conspiracy' theories raise valid questions about transparency, power structures, or information control that deserve attention. Moreover, our digital age has drastically changed information flow. Social media platforms can both amplify misinformation and provide platforms for whistleblowers or independent investigators. Thus, it's important to acknowledge the nuanced role conspiracy theories can play in sparking public discourse, even if many claims remain unproven. In my experience, respecting differing viewpoints while promoting fact-based dialogue can help bridge divides that have only deepened over the years. Ultimately, this reflective approach might explain why we owe conspiracy theorists an apology: for underestimating the social functions their narratives serve and the awareness they sometimes help raise.