/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.12701347]

I was served chili today. There were beans in it. Tonight they will learn.

[Anonymous No.12701360]

>>12701347
live stream it :^)

[Anonymous No.12701362]

>>12701347
Alarming choice of photo.

[Anonymous No.12701391]

>>12701347
American Chili is traditionally Meat, Tomato Base, Chili Powder and Kidney Beans, served alongside Corn Beard.

[Anonymous No.12701397]

You won't do shit, pussy.

[Anonymous No.12701404]

>>12701347
what you should have asked for was the meat soup then, it's your fault for not ordering correctly.

[Anonymous No.12701415]

No tonight, when those beans begin to ferment in your lower intestine, you will learn.

[Anonymous No.12701416]

>>12701347
rip tips

[Anonymous No.12701421]

You wont do shit reddit boy :^)

[Anonymous No.12701427]

who is they

[Anonymous No.12701435]

>>12701391
That's how I cook it for myself at home, I love kidney beans. One time I was at a pub and they had chili on the menu. 100% minced meat and almost no spices. With a slice of white bread. Awful.

[Anonymous No.12701486]

>>12701347
>I was served chili today. There were beans in it. Tonight they will learn.

[Anonymous No.12701502]

If it doesn't have beans it's not even chili it's just spiced ragu

[Anonymous No.12701881]

>>12701347
Was it homestyle chili or did they say
Here's your texas red?

don't answer
i'm sure you're retarded

[Anonymous No.12701920]

>>12701347
>I wanted beanless chili

So, you wanted meat sauce?

[Anonymous No.12702108]

>>12701347
All good chili have beans in them

[Anonymous No.12702276]

>>12701391
>traditionally
No. Do that if you want but it definitely isn't traditional.
>>12701881
Nobody actually calls chili "homestyle" outside of cook-offs.
"Homestyle" is just a polite term for "amateur" when cook-off rules need to differentiate between the real contest vs. the special needs side contest that's maintained to quarantine the plebs who insist on making low quality weak chili centered around filler ingredients like beans.

[Anonymous No.12702298]

>>12702108
Absolutely not. If you can actually taste beans you screwed up.
Chili is supposed to be strong as fuck. That's the entire point of chili, which is why beans are considered a filler ingredient. They either add nothing because you did a good job and made a strong chili where you can't taste beans or they add something because you did a bad job and made a weak chili where you can taste beans. In either case it's a bad sign for chili quality when there's beans in it.

[Anonymous No.12702299]

>>12701920
No, he wanted a chili.

[Anonymous No.12702302]

Black beans, pinto beans, and kidney beans

[Anonymous No.12702313]

>>12701920
Braised beef, but yeah. That's all Texans claim chili is. Braised beef; no starch, no vegetables, no anything. Just beef with the paste it was cooked it.

I like to serve it with a bed of fried baby bok choy and steamed deer brand sticky rice.

[Anonymous No.12702317]

>>12701391
That's a meat and bean stew, not a chili.

[Anonymous No.12702348]

I don't trust chili any more, impossible to tell what really is in it

[Anonymous No.12702369]

>>12701502
>>12701920
Why are you under the impression adding beans adds some sort of profound extra dimension to chili? The intention of adding beans was just as a meat substitute filler used by poor people to make what little meat they could afford last a little longer. It wasn't because people decided chili would be improved by beans.

[Anonymous No.12702397]

chili has beans in it traditionally
i grew up in the town that popularized chili and its always served with beans

[Anonymous No.12702449]

>>12702397
Chili was invented in Texas and Texas Chili doesn't have beans. The full name of the dish is chili con carne, not chili con carne y frijoles.

[Anonymous No.12702453]

>>12701347
Learn what? That you are a beta faggot and not a Chad?

[Anonymous No.12704385]

>>12702369
yet it was still improved hmmm

[Anonymous No.12704465]

I don't understand this meme. Why would you want chili with no filler? Competition chili is just meat sauce and spice. It's fucking ass.

[Anonymous No.12705735]

>>12704465
>Why would you want chili with no filler?
The entire point of the word "filler" is to refer to ingredients that don't add anything and just take up space.
Beans only take up space that would have been filled by meat.
>just meat sauce
If you can actually taste a difference by adding beans then your chili is WAY too weak. Chili is supposed to be flavorful to the extreme, not some sad, low flavor bean soup.
>>12704385
>yet it was still improved
Nope. Adding beans accomplished what poor people used them for: Making more meals with less meat to save money. It never improved chili.
>>12702397
>chili has beans in it traditionally
Even historians on the pro-beans side of the debate accept that isn't true. The argument is whether it's OK to use them now, not whether it was traditionally added. It wasn't traditionally added.

[Anonymous No.12705916]

>>12705735
Yeah, and traditionally chili con carne was meat pounded together with salt and chile peppers, formed into blocks, dried and rehydrated in water on trail drives. If you're not making it just like that, you have no business arguing about muh tradition.

[Anonymous No.12705931]

>>12705916
I'm not the one who brought up "traditionally." The anon trying to claim beans were "traditionally" added to chili was. Which is clearly not true.

[Anonymous No.12705951]

>>12701347
were you the one who shot up the commiefornia garlic festival yesterday? im reporting this thread to the fbi btw

[Anonymous No.12707611]

>>12705735
>The entire point of the word "filler" is to refer to ingredients that don't add anything and just take up space.
while i get where you are coming from, and agree that the beans should not influence taste, it's a bit silly to dismiss filler ingredients like that.
A frikadel without the bread, egg and potential other ingredients is just a plain meatball. The bread in particular adds nothing to the flavor, but changes the conistency dramatically.
Many dishes in asian cuisine are served with rice, which also only changes texture in most cases (disregarding perfumed rice). These things can be essential to a meal, and even greatly benefit it, despite them having been ultimately added to feed more people.

[Anonymous No.12709378]

>>12702369
>adding beans was just as a meat substitute filler used by poor people to make what little meat they could afford last a little longer
Why should anyone give a fuck what it used to be for? Lobster used to trash poor people food, and rich people developed painful gastro problems from lack of fiber.
Beans are incredibly good for you and there shouldn't be any aversion to using them just because they're cheap.

The texture you get from using blended beans is unmatched, a consistency that can't be replicated through reduction or thickeners.

[Anonymous No.12709435]

>>12707611
>consistency
>>12709378
>texture
I have no idea how anyone could actually find the consistency / texture of beans something important that should be added to chili. They're very soft (at least any time I've ever had chili with beans in the past they were; maybe someone uses an extra-firm variety of beans that stays harder to chew even after getting thoroughly cooked, but if they do I'm not familiar with it) and you pretty much just chew through them like they're nothing. At most you get a bit of a, I want to say, waxy-ish kind of feeling from chewing through a bunch of them compared to other kinds of soft chew foods like noodles or rice.
And again, I don't even think there's anything particularly bad about them (aside from intestinal issues after eating beans). I just really don't see how anyone could be this into them. I would never feel like I was missing out on something by eating a nice bowl of regular style chili con carne as the basic chili with meat ingredients the name tells you the dish is made out of. If anything I'd be a little disappointed with beans in chili since they'd be robbing you of space that could've been filled with more meat instead. That's the crux of it, I would always rather have meat than beans. Like asking if I'd rather have lettuce or more meat in a sandwich. Would always opt for more meat and no lettuce.

[Anonymous No.12709441]

>>12701347
Pics or it didn't happen! OP is always a
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.12709479]

>>12701347
Stop, you aren't going to do anything. You probably didn't even have chili today, and know no one who would ever serve it to you

[Anonymous No.12709484]

This fucking thread again.

Only Texans and Southerners are this autistic about chili. To the rest of us, chili is a spicy stew that is slow cooked or pressure cooked. It is brown or red in color. Get over yourself. No one gives a fuck about you and your marginally significant culinary artifact and they never will.

[Anonymous No.12709492]

>>12709441
>>12709479
Obviously it didn't happen. I'm surprised anyone could read this as anything other than a very transparent "let's have another traditional chili vs. beans chili debate" joke opener.

[Anonymous No.12709493]

>>12709484
Riddle me this:
Buffalo wings dipped in ranch dressing instead of blue cheese-- Is this a good idea?

[Anonymous No.12709496]

>>12705735
You're making a meal to eat and be filling. If you want chili without filler, go to a competition.

[Anonymous No.12709498]

>>12709484
>>12709493
Because more people today use ranch than blue cheese as a buffalo wing dip, yet it's very clear blue cheese is the traditional buffalo wing dip as is done in Buffalo, NY where that particular plate originated.

[Anonymous No.12709501]

>>12709496
How the fuck are you arguing beans are MORE filling than meat?
Also "filler" doesn't even mean "filling." Not sure if you're being serious here.

[Anonymous No.12709513]

>>12701347
Beans aren't the worst you fuck

[Anonymous No.12709541]

>>12701347
give beans a chance

[Anonymous No.12709588]

>>12701347
I add two or three kinds of beans, a bunch of vegetables.
My chili base is fine diced onion, carrot and celery. Fry it up with some garlic, then add the meat, then spices, booze and stock. Add in some cooked green beans too (cooked because the chili won't get hot enough to neutralise the alkaloids).
Throw it in the slow-cooker for a few hours.
Later, put in cans of beans, at least two, maybe three, different kinds. Kidney/pinto, bortoli, whatever else.
Sometimes I like to throw in a can of corn too, just 10 minutes before serving. Really perks it up.

Traditional? I don't give a fuck, it's delicious and I'm sure they'd like in Mexico and probably Texas too.

OP is a fag though and doesn't like good chili.

[Anonymous No.12709593]

>>12705951
>were you the one who shot up the commiefornia garlic festival yesterday?
I think that was a white supremacist wasn't it?
Actually, you're probably right. Report OP

[Anonymous No.12709717]

>>12705735
>t. Anti-bean chili historian

[Anonymous No.12710567]

>>12709588
>I'm sure they'd like in Mexico and probably Texas too.
Mexicans think chili in general is American garbage (part of why it's pretty well established chili was invented in Texas and not Mexico is because of how vehemently Mexicans have disowned having anything to do with the dish).
Texans think beans in chili is heresy.
So "no" on both counts.