Abstract
Sharing the notion of identity as a dynamic construct within social interaction (cf. Kresic 2006; Mead 1968; Tajfel 1978), the paper traces the strategic manoeuvers by which far and extreme right users try to obtain opinion leadership in online debates. Based on the concept of "communities of practice" (cf. Wenger 2010, 2000, 1998; Wenger/McDermott/Snyder 2002; Lave/Wenger 1991), the qualitative as well as quantitative analysis of 1047 user comments combines conversation analytic approaches to identity construction (cf. a. o. De Fina/Shiffrin/Bamberg 2006; Bucholtz/Hall 2005, 2003) with typical far and extreme right argumentation schemes specified by critical discourse analysis (cf. a. o. Reisigl/Wodak 2001; Wetherell/Potter 1992; Wodak et al. 1990; van Dijk 1987). The results show that within far and extreme right communities of practice, differing comments are no longer seen as legitimate contribution to the debate, but are considered as personal lack of understanding and, ultimately, as proof of the opponent's intellectual inadequacy.