Main Jerk Ass Has A Point Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

12:15:29 PM Apr 19th 2016
  • Let's look at the view of Fudge and the ministry towards Harry in the fifth book. The only evidence that Voldemort has returned is a dead body that could have died as a result of anything, nor are we ever told if it is possible to test for death by the killing curse. It was noted previously that a single teenager's testimony is not enough for anyone to believe seriously and Harry has dubious credibility as it is. Finally Voldemort is believed to be dead; no magic can revive the dead and the knowledge of horcruxes appears to be virtually unknown thanks to all the texts on the dark arts only mentioning them by name with only Dumbledore suspecting that Voldemort had used them. So is it any wonder no one believes Harry.
Yes, it is any wonder no one believes Harry. Body CAN be checked for the killing curse, since it's the only way of killing that causes no actual injury, ministry knew Riddles were killed by a wizard, and they had Cedric's body. Also it's not only Harry's testimony but also Crouch's testimony made under veritaserum, as well as Snape's dark mark comming back. Adding a bit of Fridge Logic, they should've known magic was used at that graveyard at that precise time, becuase Harry had a trace on him at time. Magic that involved killing curses that no 14year old should be capable of using, not had any reason to use. They had four pieces of evidence aside from the Trace that came perfectly together, not to mention Karkaroff disapeared at the same time. Even putting that aside we'd have Strawman Has a Point, not this, as Cornelius is clearly presented as wrong for not believer Harry despite overwhelming evidence, just because it would mean he'd have to face another war.
05:04:53 PM Mar 12th 2016
I deleted this from the main page :

  • This Troper never bought into Quark's sanctimonious speech about how the Ferengi were better than humans because they never had LITERAL slavery. They're an ultra-capitalist society, where workers have zero rights and where profit and the acquisition of wealth are valued more than life itself, so they have WAGE slavery if nothing else. Not to mention, their women are treated as little better than chattel (sexual and domestic slaves). If it's technically true that they never had actual slavery, it's damning with faint praise.

Although I sympathize with this point of view, I believe that talking about it on the main page is "natter." This belongs on the Discussion page, if anywhere.
11:11:22 PM Nov 15th 2014
edited by
The avengers one needs some reviewing, since the point that Captain America was making was that Tony Stark couldn't make the sacrifice play. Which he couldn't until significant character development.

Rather then being an attack on his manliness, it was a summation of his character flaw, his selfishness, and the end involved him conquering that flaw and being able to make the sacrifice play. In this context it seems that the appropriate example of the trope is Captain America given the jerky way he delivered it.
09:49:17 AM Nov 16th 2014
Stark was still a Jerkass at the time of the accusation, though you still make a good point. Both characters could easily qualify for this trope, they butt heads because their worldviews are so different, but neither one of them is completely right. Cap sees Stark as a narcissist and Stark sees Cal as na´ve, which are both somewhat accurate and are dealt with in their character development.
11:30:45 PM Aug 29th 2014
Could Rational Wiki count as an inversion? It is the intention of its community to "have a point" by critiquing and debunking pseudoscientific claims. However, the tone they use seems (to me anyway) needlessly mean at times. Their attitude towards people who believe in things like psychics, magic quantum physics, and conspiracies feels less like "you have not been educated properly, we can help" and more "you are wrong and we are better than you for not believing what you do". It even feels petty at times, their page on Elizer Yudkowsky especially strikes me for how they mention he's a fanfiction author for seemingly no reason and use an extreme simplification of utilitarianism to describe his sense of morality. I fully welcome skepticism, I actually love the idea of a "skeptics wiki", but too many times the community moves past questioning ideas and into the realm of hating on people for what they believe. Yes, a person with an incorrect view of how the world works needs to be taught to accept the truth, but many of the topics on this site don't fall under that category and in all cases it can still come off as needlessly mean.

I admit, this is somewhat personal for me. I am a believer in psychics, the collective consciousness, and Noetic Science. However, I am also a physics major who has come to realize why those topics are not accepted in mainstream science and now accept my beliefs as subjective opinions that are not applicable to my chosen career or daily life. My personal experiences have convinced me that faith healing is real, but I will never recommend it over conventional medical care because there's no way to measure, effectively replicate, or objectively prove or disprove the existence or effect of it. To me, that's the important lesson to teach. You shouldn't say "prayer doesn't work" to a religious person, you should say there are other things you can do that have proven to be more effective, that way you encourage them to accept facts they didn't know instead of alienating the person you want to persuade by telling them their deeply held beliefs are wrong. Along with teaching critical thinking, of course, which Rational Wiki also doesn't seem to do much of. I haven't read very much of the website, but I don't recall any explanations of why something is incorrect, just that it is an that we should believe them because you'd have to be an idiot or a scam artist to believe or promote these ideas.
01:54:33 AM Dec 10th 2012
I really think this trope shouldn't be called "Jerkass Has A Point". It's somewhat inaccurate since not all who "make a point" are jerkasses. Kimblee from Fullmetal Alchemist and the Joker from The Dark Knight aren't jerkasses but a Faux Affably Evil Sociopaths. Kaku from One Piece is a Nice Affably Evil Token Good Teamate. And yet someone reading might incorrectly assume they're obnoxious jerkasses.
11:54:08 PM Aug 8th 2012
Thinking my edit reason on the ASOIAF example might have been phrased somewhat rudely.

My point though is that as I understand the trope, Jerkass Has a Point comes up when a character who is unlikeable/would usually be in the wrong, happens to be in the right in a situation. In that example, Tyrion is in the opposite position- under normal circumstances, he'd be in the right, but in the situation, he's in the wrong.

Tyrion was behaving like a jerkass in the situation, but he isn't fitting Jerkass Has a Point- he probably would fit Wrong Genre Savvy though (thinking he's in a world where The Magic Goes Away, when he's actually in a world where The Magic Comes Back).
12:11:35 PM May 28th 2012
edited by Orihime
Taking this example here to avert an Edit War. It sounds like people are taking Ulquiorra's cruel verbal beatdowns of Orihime while he was fighting Ichigo — to put their own thoughts of Orihime on him in his mouth. He was NOT "pointing out Fridge Logic", he was BREAKING HER MIND DELIBERATELY as a part of his psychological torture of her. Therefore putting it in the page itself it brings Unfortunate Implications about people blaming Orihime for Ichigo's injuries.

  • Despite being in the middle of a fight, Ulquiorra will take time out of fights to point out Fridge Logic. More famously, he questions Orihime as to why she just didn't save Ichigo from the first blow, much less do anything to stop her love interest from being killed at the start of the battle.

Also, the Fridge Logic can be easy to defuse when we take in consideration that it's a common place in ALL mangas that include matches and fights. You NEVER EVER interrupt a fight between a character and their rival/s, no matter how desperate the situation is, because it's seen as an insult to the chara that is fighting . It got a lampshade early in Bleach, with the Kaien vs. Metastasia fight: Ukitake stopped Rukia from intervening and gave her a whole lecture on it. Whether it's right or wrong, it's something else, but laying a smackdown on Orihime for not running to stop a fight that had "It's Personal" all over it is redundant and unfair - specially considering that Ulquiorra used it as a part of his deliberate Break the Cutie against her.
11:44:35 PM Oct 4th 2011
Examples need specific details if they are going to help flesh out the trope. Please see How to Write an Example.

11:43:18 AM Mar 15th 2011
Bah LEE Ted:

  • There's the Angel episode "Epiphany". Angel's alienated most of his friends, and the world is about to be destroyed. The Host, who up to that point was just an obstructive joke character, helped him get his life back together and save the world.

And The Host is a jerkass since...?
10:48:08 AM Dec 9th 2010
This is a very narrow interpretation of the trope name. What about shows like Becker where a Jerkass isn't calling a protagonist out on anything but, you know, has a point?
Collapse/Expand Topics