• escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ya’ll better watch out now y’hear? We don take kindly to that kind’a hate speech ‘round these parts. Equal weight beans and beef, you skimp out either and yain’t fixin’ chili; you might’ina even be inclined to leave for everyone’s sake.

      • SolarNialamide@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where in the world do you not put beans in chili? That’s literally the point of chili. Is this an American thing I’m too European to understand?

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Chili involves 2 things: Chilis and beef. Much in the idea of molé sauce, you can get a lot of complexity from chili powder alone.

        • Rambi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve also heard them say tomatoes shouldn’t be added to chilli as well

          • x3n0s@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            As a Texan, this is true. Traditional chili is based on the Mexican “chili con carne,” meaning “chilies with meat.”

            Chili normally is a stew with 1 inch cubes of a tougher meat like chuck steak that’s been stewed down until tender in a liquid (water or beef stock, sometimes even beer or coffee added) and a puree of reconstituted dried chiles (not chili powder) and other spices. Nothing else goes into traditional Texan chili. Beans are sometimes served on the side though. Adding beans is perceived as a cheap filter and skimping out on the meat.

            This is the dish that started all of these other non-mexican versions of chili and you’re missing out of you’ve never had it!

      • 30mag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re trying to piss someone off, you would say “Beans belong in chili.”

        People who think it’s ok to put beans in chili don’t really care what you put in chili. You’re not going to upset them.

        On the other hand, people who believe that beans don’t belong in chili…

        • RBWells@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m southern with family from Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas and chili is all about the beans. I call chili with chiles, beans and tomatoes “Chili” and if I make it with beans, chiles, tomatoes and meat (stew meat never hamburger) “Meat Chili”. Would take chili with beans & corn over chili without beans any day of the week.

          Chili with hamburger without beans is something to put on a hot dog or bun. Not a meal, it’s like hamburger helper nonsense.

          ETA: this is not to say I’ve never made stew meat in Chile sauce. Cubed brisket finished in sauce of anchos and tomatillos is heavenly. I just never call that chili.

          • root_beer@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Being a yank scumbag, I clearly don’t help your argument but

            Chili with hamburger without beans is something to put on a hot dog or bun. Not a meal, it’s like hamburger helper nonsense.

            is how I’ve always seen it.

            Goddamn, some o’ y’inz need fiber.