That is a very interesting question.
I am really lacking in examples here, the worst offender(s) would perhaps the Left's party leader, that was the only one in parliament party leader to oppose profiteering from welfare measures. As he was quite ideologically close to the party I then supported (2018 ), let's go to the other side. The leader of your average European social conservative with controversies ahoy and a ladle of Euroskepticism. Their leader suggested that the best measure against 2015's refugee crisis was to help on site, I fully agreed with him, this was however as relayed from a contemporary quote from the Dalai Lama. I was and still am more sure that the Dalai lama had the refugees' best interest in mind, whereas with the controversial party leader surely only using it as an excuse to keep them out of our country. To summarise: I doubted his sincerity to actually implement humanitarian actions on site due to his political agenda. The best comparison for the PKK in the western world would perhaps be the ETA, responsible for killing Spain's PM following Franco's regime that ended in the 70's. From what I've understood, the Kurdish struggle for independence is more tolerated in Europe than in the US, and is sometimes seen as necessary action against a oppressive regime. As was the case for eta initially, but its members and civilians grew wary of the violence that came with. I would be very grateful for the input of any Spanish people who oppose their then Social Democratic government, as they were the one to sign a truce. For this though, the opposition added in some demands as to not claim that they were wrong, merely adopting a harder line that stands out from their rivals demands.
Is it very stigmatised to voice an individual opinion or otherwise stand out among the party members in Turkey?