Discourse of Repentance or Repentance in Discourse: The case of YouTube comments

Abstract

The present article attempts to  examine online commentary as a discursive genre that has been profoundly transformed by the rise of the web, where the digital space becomes a site of direct expression, often marked by strong emotional intensity, a polemical tone, and at times even verbal violence. Through an analysis of the reactions sparked by a YouTube interview with Benjamin Stora—in which he discusses his report on the Algerian War—the author focuses in particular on the discourses and counter-discourses that emerge around the sensitive issues of repentance and non-repentance. These comments, posted by internet users in the video’s comment section, reveal a wide range of ideological positions and a great diversity of argumentative approaches. The central aim of this article is to identify and describe the types of arguments used by commenters, as well as the discursive strategies they employ to assert, justify, or challenge often opposing viewpoints. The study is situated within the field of argumentation in digital discourse, drawing on the theoretical framework proposed by Patrick Charaudeau, particularly his work on the discourse of repentance, as well as on the contributions of Marianne Doury concerning the typology of arguments and the construction of controversy. The author thus highlights how the dynamics of online debate—although often conflictual—contribute to the redefinition of collective memory surrounding a colonial past that remains vivid in the Franco-Algerian imaginary.