You are wrong. Most normal people in nyc have gas stoves and they are massively superior in every way to a typical electric range.

Induction cooktops can be nice, but they are more expensive last I checked, and impose lots of limitations on what cookware you can use, including making it infeasible to use high end copper bottom French sauté pans, which also happen to be very hard to match the performance of.

It is absolutely a burden, and meddlesome, and a reduction in freedom of choice, and gas stoves use minuscule amounts of gas.

And I also used my gas stove to prepare meals during at least three nyc blackouts.

If you try to do exactly what you were doing on the gas stove in the same way, you will have a bad time, but my and many other people's experience is that a decent electric stove is perfectly capable of making good food once you figure out how to use it. Electric stoves in general can heat faster than gas, and in my experience heat more evenly (no hot spots), so you don't need the crutch of a copper bottom to conduct that heat across the surface. It's certainly true that there are a lot of crappy cheap electric stoves out there that are not nice to cook with, but there are also plenty of crappy gas stoves that don't work well too. There's a ton of propaganda out there about how cooking with gas is better (much of it funded by the gas producers and distributors), but it doesn't hold up well under inspection.

You are right that most people in new york have gas, but new york is an outlier in that -- one of only five states that are majority gas. Most of Tucker Carlson's audience have electric stoves.

And there’s no such thing as propaganda for electric stoves in your view? It’s always the “other side” that’s a victim of propaganda?

To be clear, I used to believe the gas stove propaganda myself. I too, like GP, had the feeling that gas was self-evidently better than electric, and that it wasn't possible to have an argument about it. Then I tried being open-minded about it and found the arguments for electric (and my experiences, once I gave it a chance) to be very convincing.

Good job falling for the electric stove propaganda campaign, with its arguments for their supposed benefits and accusations of gas stove propaganda. Fools and their quality stoves soon parted or whatever.

The person you are responding to managed to work Tucker Carlson into the convo so obviously knows precisely what is propaganda and what is objective fact.

All rational and educated modern chefs understand that copper bottom pans are just a crutch, because Mother Jones said so.

It’s not propaganda. I’ve cooked on all sorts of stoves.

Electric is way worse than gas. It’s not even up for reasonable debate.

Here's some reading about how much propaganda there has been for gas in the last century or so: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/06/how-the-foss...

Have you used an induction stove before? It's better than gas, and it's not even close (and yes, I have a gas range). Note that induction is not the same thing as resistive.

> but my and many other people's experience is that a decent electric stove is perfectly capable of making good food once you figure out how to use it

Not surprised your glib attitude, towards something a millions of people have a very strong preference towards and is dismissed out of hand, coincides with your authoritarian leaning takes. "I like induction, you can learn to like it to, move along citizen."

Please don't cross into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> For one thing the conservative talking points were all about a sense that the feds were coming for your freedom, and not in any way about the merits or otherwise of being able to burn gas in the place you live.

Well if the federal government’s opinion on gas is operative, and not your own, how is that not coming for your freedom?

You may think they have good cause, but that doesn’t change the nature of a law that bans you from doing or having something.

I want the government to always be balancing the good of society against my individual freedom. These people are saying "this limits my freedom" and ignoring the societal benefits. That's disingenuous. And you can tell it's disingenuous because the next thing they say is "we need government to ban books about gay people", or "we need government to ban abortion". I'm not saying your freedom shouldn't be a consideration, I'm saying it should be one consideration that is balanced against others.