History MortonsFork / RealLife

* 1988 Presidential hopeful Michael Dukakis [[https://www.politico.com/story/2007/04/questions-that-kill-candidates-careers-003617 faced this]] in the campaign's most pivotal debate, where the arbitrator of the debate, Bernard Shaw, asked if Dukakis (who was a supporter of prison furloughs and opposed the death penalty) whether he would support the death penalty for a criminal who had raped and murdered his wife. As many commentators pointed out, there was no way for Dukakis to answer without looking bad: giving an emotional answer would show the question got to him, appealing to logic would make it seem like he doesn't care about his wife, answering "yes" would compromise his stated principles, and refusing or disputing the question would leave the audience imagining whichever answer was most damaging. Dukakis's answer--explaining with evidence why he believed the death penalty was bad policy--was one of the better answers, but still saw him drop in the polls by about 5% overnight.

* 1988 Presidential hopeful Michael Dukakis faced this in the campaign's most pivotal debate, where the arbitrator of the debate, Bernard Shaw, asked if Dukakis (who was a supporter of prison furloughs and opposed the death penalty) whether he would support the death penalty for a criminal who had raped and murdered his wife. As many commentators pointed out, there was no real way for Dukakis to answer the question without looking bad: he couldn't give an emotional answer because that would look like the question had gotten to him, he couldn't appeal to logic without seeming like he didn't care about his wife, he couldn't answer "yes" because that would compromise his stated principles, and if he refused or disputed the question, that would let the audience imagine whichever answer was most damaging. Dukakis's answer--explaining with evidence why he believed the death penalty was bad policy--was realistically one of the better answers, but still saw him drop in the polls by about 5% overnight.

* In December 2022, a parent in Utah decided to use a law passed by the GOP-controlled government request them to remove a book. The law allowed parents to request a book to be banned from Utah school libraries and classrooms should it contain "pornographic or indecent" works, riding on a wave of book banning that coincided with a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ and minority people. The book? Literature/TheBible, with eight pages of passages from the book that showcased numerous indecent moments. This puts the government in a bit of a bind - if they ban the book, this will anger their conservative Christian base; if they don't ban the book, even with its proof, it sets up a DoubleStandard and even risks having the law challenged in court. [[HoistByHisOwnPetard The Bible was banned around June 1, 2023, with one of the lawmakers expressing annoyance at this]] and, indeed, that very base got angry. The district eventually put the Bible back on the shelves, claiming the book's cultural value outweighs the inappropriate content, which critics of the law immediately used to argue that the law is about banning books that don't align with the lawmakers' and parents' views.

* During the Vietnam War, men would try evading the draft by pretending to be gay so they'd be ineligible, as LGBT people weren't allowed to serve in the American military at the time. This immediately created a situation; either take part in an unpopular war that killed thousands of people or pretend to be gay during a time period where there was a major stigma against homosexuality.

* In April 2023, during the Russo-Ukrainian War, a Russian warplane [[FriendlyFire accidentally bombed the Russian city of Belgorod]], killing three people. Admitting to the mistake would have been highly embarrassing and made the Russian military look incompetent, but when Russian news anchors immediately blamed the attack on Ukraine, the military realized this ''also'' made them look incompetent for not preventing the supposed "enemy attack," so they swiftly came clean about the affair.

* Monster movies such as those featuring {{Kaiju}} often get flak for either of two reasons: [[JustHereForGodzilla focusing on the human drama instead of the cool monster action]], or [[SpotlightStealingSquad focusing too much on the monsters and shafting the human characters in the process]]. For example, critics reacted positively to the human drama in ''Film/Godzilla2014'', but audiences were less pleased due to the very limited screentime of the titular monster; fast forward to ''Film/GodzillaKingOfTheMonsters2019'' and while audiences loved the kaiju battles they signed up for, critics complained about the lack of focus given to the human side of the story. Even balancing the monster and human elements (which is admittedly ''extremely hard'' to do anyway) isn't an option either at times - because complaints will come in from some source or another that [[FailureIsTheOnlyOption too little was done with BOTH of them]]. Ultimately, with ''Film/GodzillaVsKong'', they stuck with the monster fights because the audience ''pays'' for their privilege.

** In the doctors' case, the choice is either, obey the law and doom a young girl to MandatoryMotherhood. Or break the law and risk [[ArrestedForHeroism going to prison for performing an illegal abortion.]] And refusing to perform an abortion which could actually save the girl's life (in the event of a horrific miscarriage) would get the doctor arrested by ''federal law'' for endangering the girl.

* In April 2023, during the Russo-Ukrainian War, a Russian warplane [[FriendlyFire accidentally bombed the Russian city of Belgorod]], killing three people. Admitting to the mistake would have been highly embarrassing and made the Russian military look incompetent, but when Russian news anchors immediately began blaming the attack on Ukraine, the Russians realized this ''also'' made them look incompetent for not preventing the supposed "enemy attack", so they swiftly came clean about the affair.

* Some cruel guards in Nazi concentration camps played a version of this ForTheEvulz: a guard approached a prisoner, grabbed his cap and threw it on the grass by the fence, ordering the prisoner to pick it up. If the guy refused, he was shot for disobedience; if he followed the order, he was shot for an escape attempt.

* In 2011, a twenty-year-old woman claimed that she had been knocked up by Music/JustinBieber the year before, and sued to be compensated. The problem was that if she lost her case, she could easily be tried for fraud; if she won the case, she could be tried for ''statutory rape'', since Bieber would have been under the legal age of consent at the time of conception. The case quietly went away.

* A version was played ForTheEvulz by particularly cruel guards in Nazi concentration camps: a guard approached a prisoner, grabbed his cap and threw it on the grass by the fence, ordering the prisoner to pick it up. If the guy refused, he was shot for disobedience; if he followed the order, he was shot for an escape attempt.

* The documentary "The Problem With Apu" created a situation for the creators of ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons''. If they modified Apu to appeal to political correctness or remove him outright, then it'll offend nostalgic fans for "pandering to [=SJWs=]" or make them afraid of what can happen to other beloved characters in the series. If they didn't change Apu, then they'll be blamed for ignoring complaints or accused of promoting their accusations through inactivity. They decided to go with a mix of both options: Apu remains in the series, but is now voiced by an actor of Indian descent.

** For the girl, the choice is either to accept that her life will now be ruined or to opt for a "back alley" abortion. If she chooses the latter, being prosecuted for having an illegal abortion will be the ''least'' of her worries,[[note]]especially because she's a minor anyway, so it's very unlikely she will go to jail for it[[/note]] and she might instead end up severely injured or ''dead'' if something goes wrong, which is more than likely. Or she could TakeTheThirdOption and move to a place where there are no consent laws for abortion, and even then it's easier said than done considering she may have limited resources to travel long-distance.

** For the girl herself, the choice is either, accept that her life will now be ruined or opt for a "back alley" abortion. If she chooses the latter, being prosecuted for having an illegal abortion will be the ''least'' of her worries,[[note]]especially because she's a juvenile anyway, so it's very unlikely she will go to jail for it[[/note]] and she might instead end up severely injured or ''dead'' if something goes wrong, which is more than likely. Or she could TakeTheThirdOption and move to a place where there are no consent laws for abortion, and even then, it's easier said than done considering that as a minor with no support from parents, she may have limited resources to travel long-distance.

* Former US FBI director James Comey was in this position in October 2016. The FBI had just quietly reopened the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for her duties as Secretary of State had violated any laws, after some of those emails were found on computers seized during a sexting investigation into former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who at that time was still married to Hillary's assistant Huma Abedin. Since releasing information like that so close to the election could affect the result, the Justice Department has a policy against it. But... Comey was hardly the only one in the bureau who knew this, and there were many agents who hated Clinton and supported Trump. It was likely that if he ''didn't'' make it public that the investigation had been reopened, it would be leaked to right-wing news outlets with the implication that Comey was covering for Hillary... very damaging to him since the FBI's earlier decision to clear her of any wrongdoing (though he took the time to say that using the private server was "reckless", which itself went beyond [=DoJ=] guidelines) had been seen as politically motivated by Republicans.\\

Comey decided to release it... and then just the weekend before the election announced that no incriminating evidence had been found. Republicans ''still'' thought he was covering up for a likely future boss; Democrats accused him of helping Trump regardless of his intentions. The [[{{Irony}} ironic twist]] came when Trump won, and several months into his administration fired Comey, supposedly for the reasons Democrats were mad at him.
* The U.S. Supreme Court's ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrity_v._New_Jersey Garrity v. New Jersey]]'' decision created this for government employees who are investigated internally for administrative violations, whether or not the alleged misconduct might potentially be a crime. The logic is that, while citizens have the right not to be compelled to incriminate themselves, the government also has an interest in employees cooperating fully with internal investigations. So, the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrity_warning Garrity warning]] given before questioning in that situation, in addition to reminding the interview subject that they do not have to say anything, warns them that if they ''do'' exercise that right, they can nonetheless be disciplined by their employer, even terminated, for refusal to cooperate. So, if you're a government employee at ''any'' level facing charges for something you actually did, you can either cooperate and incriminate yourself, or keep your mouth shut and be disciplined for it.
* Numerous news outlets have assumed this was what caused the 2018-2019 US government shutdown. On December 19th, the Senate passed a bill to fund the government, but only allotted less than $2 billion for President Trump's much-talked-about border wall. Trump was actually initially fine with this, and stated as much, expressing his willingness to sign the bill into law. However, shortly before he signed off on it, he suddenly changed his mind - $5.7 billion for the Wall or the Government enters shutdown. Many people on Twitter took notice of various right-wing supporters for Trump such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh decrying such a move, claiming he would be seen as "weak" and a "coward" for capitulating for such a low amount[[note]]It's worth noting here that it is generally accepted that Trump informs many of his decisions based on optics: how it will look to his base, of which Coulter and Limbaugh are very vocal representatives[[/note]], and stating that he threatened to shut down the government if he didn't get his way, and where was that [[PaperTiger empty threat]] now? As a result, many have assumed that Trump's about-face on the issue was a result of a Morton's Fork he created for himself: either he follows through on the threat of shutting down the government to get his way, which would be deeply unpopular, or he fails to follow through and alienates his base, and also gets exposed for his empty threat, which means he wouldn't be taken seriously again (a dangerous political proposition). So he followed through and shut down the government.\\
\\

* In December 2022, a parent in Utah decided to use a law passed by the GOP-controlled government that past May to request banning a book. The law allowed parents to request a book to be banned from Utah school libraries and classrooms should it contain "pornographic or indecent" works, riding on a wave of book banning that coincided with a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ and minority people. The book? Literature/TheBible, with eight pages of passages from the book that showcased numerous indecent moments. This puts the government in a tight spot - if they ban the book, this will anger their conservative Christian base; if they don't ban the book, even with its proof, it sets up a DoubleStandard and even risks having the law challenged in court. [[HoistByHisOwnPetard The Bible was banned around June 1, 2023, with one of the lawmakers expressing annoyance at this]] and, indeed, that very base got angry. The district eventually put the Bible back in the shelves, claiming that the book's cultural value outweighs the inappropriate content in it, which critics of the law immediately used to argue that the law is about banning books that don't align with the lawmakers' and parents' views.