CBC Arts46%

Does Toy Story 5 really go anti-tech? 32%

By Nathan Chizen0%

6/22/2026, 8:41:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Anecdotal, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 1,990 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,049 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.1% and a BS Rank of 32% (14,009 of 20,365 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.80% of the article peer group.

<em>Toy Story 5</em>, the latest installment in Pixar’s flagship franchise, arrived in theatres this past weekend. 
Again led by the voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and Joan Cusack, the latest threat to the gang of sentient toys arrives in the form of Lilypad, an educational tablet designed to help children socialize. 
Voiced by Greta Lee, the character embodies a lot of the concerns parents have as tech becomes more and more ingrained in the lives of children. 
But does <em>Toy Story 5</em> have much to say about that? 
Today on <em>Commotion</em>, culture critics <u>Kristy Puchko</u> and <u>Jackson Weaver</u> join guest host <u>Radheyan Simonpillai</u> to talk about the franchise’s latest installment, and where it lands when it comes to tech. 
<em>We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. 
For the full discussion, </em><u><em>listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player.</em></u> 
<em><strong>WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube:</strong></em><span><span class="youtube"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yv5t2ve8LVc" frameBorder="no" title="YouTube content" allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy"></iframe></span></span> 
<strong>Radheyan: </strong>This movie is about this tension that feels so relevant right now, because we are at a tipping point, not just in terms of parents having to fight screen time with their kids or manage screen time, but we’re also in a moment culturally  globally  where a bunch of different countries are trying to introduce social media bans so children under 16 are not online. 
So tell me, how do you think <em>Toy Story 5</em> did in terms of grappling with these issues? 
<strong>Jackson: </strong>I'll say that I love <em>Toy Story 5</em>. 
Kristy’s [done] such a good job of being the champion and saying the things that I also loved about it that I'm gonna go into the curmudgeonly things about it, where this film is set up as being anti-tech, which one, kind of late  maybe we should have done that in <em>Toy Story 4</em> six years ago when it was actually relevant for kids to have LeapFrogs  and then also it very much walks a centre line as the movie progresses. 
It is not anti-tech. 
One of the good characters is a device named Smarty Pants that helps train kids to be potty trained [and is] voiced by Conan O'Brien. 
So throughout the movie, I think Pixar does what it has been doing so much recently  in <em>Elio</em>, taking out its LGBTQ storylines to not offend anybody [and] <em>Hoppers</em>, making its climate catastrophe moral [that] being the way to save the world is to befriend your local politician. 
They don't want to upset anybody. 
So this film is very much being like, “Yo, tech is bad. 
But also, Apple is cool. 
Maybe we'll get a tablet and just be responsible.” 
And outside of that, I think what the <em>Toy Story</em> franchise really does  and it gets more kind of problematic as it goes on  is [that] it's not really about kids. 
This is a franchise and a metaphor about parenthood  about raising a kid that you cannot protect from the world and accepting that they will go forth away from you into that world and leave you behind. 
And then outside of that, the issue being that it's more about celebrating this pure idea of childhood. 
There's this philosophical essay I love called <em>No Future</em> by Lee Edelman. 
It's all about how every single political argument and debate is predicated around the idea of this metaphorical, pure, generic child that has no specific identity markers. 
So we make every single policy change and decision we can to protect that kind of future, while ignoring the individuals. 
And I think this movie walks in lockstep with how we do have all these social media bans. 
How much scientific evidence do we have for their efficacy? 
I don't know. 
But it seems like it's going to help the idea of a pure imaginative childhood, so let's go and do it, and this movie is very much also pushing that forward… 
<strong>Radheyan:</strong> Kristy, were there any other themes in this movie that really connected with you? 
<strong>Kristy: </strong>It does tie into the tech angle, which I understand they don't want to totally demonize tech because they're selling Lilypads. 
But there is an element, especially for kids who have a small, real life social circle, that the internet can be a place for you to find community. 
And the movie does touch on that a little bit, because Bonnie, through the internet, meets Blaze who is a little bit older and a little more comfortable in who she is. 
And like Bonnie, she has a very distinctive way of playing with her games. 
I feel like when we saw Andy play, it was very straightforward. 
He was like, “It's a train robbery,” or whatever. 
And theirs is like a little weirder. 
I love that for them. 
And I think it becomes this celebration of “it's OK to be the weird kid,” because, in the original <em>Toy Story</em> movie, Andy is just a generic little boy. 
But this is more specifically about these girls who are distinctive. 
When they show other kids in the neighborhood, these girls are combining their own patterns, they're wearing clothes that might be considered loud or too much or costumey. 
But also, we know those kids, and cheers to those kids who aren't afraid of doing the thing that's different. 
With Bonnie, you see that she is afraid of being rejected [by] people for being too much. 
And then you meet Blaze, who's not, and [she] sees Bonnie and is like, “Let's play.” 
There's something so healing in that. 
While there are other things in this that tie back to other <em>Toy Story </em>films that made me weep like a child, that was like something new for this franchise. 
Because as we said, it's mostly about parenthood. 
It's mostly about how the toys can help. 
And I liked the idea [that] you can find a community, and sometimes it's not easy. 
But look, seeing those girls become friends is such a big deal in this movie. 
It's really beautiful. 
<em><strong>You can listen to the full discussion from today's show on </strong></em><u><em><strong>CBC Listen</strong></em></u><em><strong> or on our podcast, Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud, </strong></em><u><em><strong>available wherever you get your podcasts</strong></em></u><em><strong>.</strong></em> 
<hr/> 
<p><em>Panel produced by Ty Callender.</em></p> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.5%Nathan Chizen: 4.4%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.7%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Nathan Chizen: 3.9%CBC: 3.2%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 7.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.8%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.0%This article: 7.9%Nathan Chizen: 0.5%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias7.9%This article: 5.5%Nathan Chizen: 1.9%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias5.5%This article: 6.4%Nathan Chizen: 3.3%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Nathan Chizen: 3.9%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.4%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Nathan Chizen: 4.1%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias19.2%This article: 0.9%Nathan Chizen: 1.6%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.9%This article: 4.3%Nathan Chizen: 1.2%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.3%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Nathan Chizen: 2.9%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.1%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Nathan Chizen: 5.3%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Nathan Chizen: 2.5%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 7.9%Nathan Chizen: 0.8%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.6%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 1.1%Nathan Chizen: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man1.1%This article: 4.7%Nathan Chizen: 2.6%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 0.5%Nathan Chizen: 1.5%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.5%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.4%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.8%Nathan Chizen: 0.5%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.8%This article: 19.4%Nathan Chizen: 11.4%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization19.4%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.6%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.9%Nathan Chizen: 3.6%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 5.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.4%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question5.0%This article: 1.7%Nathan Chizen: 2.2%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.7%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.9%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.9%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.6%Nathan Chizen: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division3.6%This article: 12.5%Nathan Chizen: 4.2%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal12.5%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Nathan Chizen: 1.9%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground7.9%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.1%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading2.1%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.9%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.7%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.4%Nathan Chizen: 3.3%CBC: 4.9%Biased Writer Voice0.4%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.8%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 4.7%Nathan Chizen: 0.5%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Nathan Chizen: 4.2%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.4%

1049 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers81%attributed speech199writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageRadheyan Simonpillai • 68 words • 0.0% coverageRadheyan Simonpillai • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 83 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 4 words • 100.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 49 words • 100.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 33 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJackson Weaver • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRadheyan Simonpillai • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 22 words • 100.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 32 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Puchko • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jackson Weaver

99%flagged-word coverage
413 attributed words49% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -28.1 ptsWriter: 28.1%Jackson Weaver: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B+11.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jackson Weaver: 11.9%11.9%Biased Writer Voice+1.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jackson Weaver: 1.0%1.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.