Introduction Political correctness (PC) refers to the elimination of verbal discrimination and negative stereotyping in public rhetoric by protecting people of various genders, races, sexual orientations, cultures, and or social conditions. This phenomenon is mainly associated with progressive social moments that tackle such issues as gender-based bias, LGBT-community rights, and ethnic minority advocacy. Although political correctness is meant to protect marginalized communities against insulting, this notion is demanded today, and it is hard to identify people who hold bigoted ideals, thereby creating the illusion of a progressive society. For this reason, this paper is aimed at demonstrating the fact that political correctness is a socially dangerous and ambiguous phenomenon. While some suggest that it can be beneficial for creating a safe environment in which all people can feel accepted, the level of contemporary political correctness is extreme. As the justification base, narrowly focused texts by Iris Marion Young, Gloria E. Anzaldúa, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. will be utilized to support specific arguments. In general, political correctness stifles free speech and does nothing to protect minorities. The Politics of Difference Although PC is intended to consider the cases of incorrect behavior in relation to minorities, its implications may be fraught with even more dangerous consequences, for instance, erasing the line between real and illusory violations. According to Young in Inclusion and Democracy , only the politics of difference can offer an opportunity to achieve a fair and public discussion of specific dissimilarities that exist among people in society.[3 1 ] The author states that those who criticize the politics of difference wrongly reduce them to “identity politics.”[3 2 ] Accepting this principle implies considering structural social groups as more crucial for appealing to justice rather than cultural groups. However, the scholar suggests that identity politics is dissimilar to the politics of differences since the former strives for solidarity through culture preservation except for cases when it is mixed with political oppression and social intolerance.[3 3 ] Thus, accepting the politics of difference implies considering structural social groups as more crucial for appealing to justice rather than cultural groups. When speaking of recognition politics, Young suggests that the ideology consists “in the assertion of specificity and difference towards a wider, from whom the movement expects respect and recognition of its agency and virtue.”[3 4 ] In regards to such groups, this statement does not include the assertion that a social group or the identity of one person against others should be characterized by its distinct qualities. Therefore, the author characterizes the politics of recognition as claims against discrimination, the unequal distribution of opportunities, unfair burdens, and political marginalization.[3 5 ] The issue of ambiguous politics in relation to ethical attitudes towards minorities is also considered by Anzaldúa. In “La Prieta,” the author reasons that even the oppressed need to call the members of their own community on prejudices.[1 6 ] Calling people out is crucial; however, th