Dialog across difference #2: Why chance it?

When we believe we might be the only person in a group to disagree with an opinion the group seems to share, what do we do?

• I am silent on it, not wishing to ruffle any feathers.
• I quickly bring it up, knowing it will be a fight that I will likely lose. 
• I caucus with others one-on-one to seek thoughts on a path forward. 
• I announce my position and resign from the group.
• I seek an outside authority who will back my position, whether that is someone with actual authority over the group or moral authority by position of recognized expertise.
• I bring it up to the group and ask for a session facilitated by a neutral third party so we can discuss it with shared ground rules.

Is there a "right answer"? Perhaps, but to gain clarity on that we would need far more context. 

• Is this a group that is vital to my life?
• Is this a group that I just recently attended meetings out of exploratory interest?
• Is there a sense of civil discourse in this group?
• Does this group seem vulnerable to groupthink?
• Are fractious fights common in this group?
• Is there an official or informal dominant personality whose opinion always rules?
• Does mutual respect seem the norm in this group?
• Does the group seem to tolerate a diversity of thought or is that choked off by a janky lack of process?

In the end, having a difficult conversation is a highly individual choice based on many factors, including a highly personalized cost/benefit analysis.