False syllogism (ChatGPT)

A dangerous false syllogism:

Premise 1: Marginalized voices have historically been excluded.

Premise 2: Inclusion is therefore necessary and just.

Unstated (and fallacious) Premise 3: Work produced from marginalized positions is inherently more valuable, authentic, or profound.

That last leap is not just logically invalid, it’s aesthetic poison, because it leads to moralized reading: judging a poem not by its internal structure, its philosophical precision, its emotional or conceptual complexity, but by the perceived virtue of the speaker’s position.

This isn’t just a disservice to literature; it’s a paternalism masquerading as justice. It implies that marginalized writers can’t be held to the same standards, or that their value lies in being seen rather than saying something difficult, original, or lasting. That’s not empowerment; that’s aesthetic condescension.

ChatGPT