>>22052354 chili without beans is like ragu alla bolognese without any tomato. sure, it's "traditional", but both beans and tomatoes are delicious and nutritious and you're depriving yourself of flavor for no reason by not adding any.
I roast poblanos, jalapeños, onion, garlic, tomatos, and tomatillos in the oven until blistered, then mash them in a pot with paprika, salt, cumin, pepper and add in some browned meat chunks (pork or chicken). Is this chili?
>>22052354 With beans. Beans are yummy. They add texture. They are nutritious. And they're cheap. Unless you are making topping for hotdogs or something.
>>22052354 I prefer mine with. I've done thinly sliced brisket marinated and smoked with peppers and salt, reconsituted as a stew. As part of a meal, it was pretty far from terrible - a little lime juice, a little shallot butter... but I would not have enjoyed it as much without veggies and rice. There's something about chili that demands to either be a part of something great, or to have filler to be greater itself.
>>22052354 I am an anti bean extremist, no bean is the way god intended chili to be eaten simple as. Beans contribute no positive flavor and only exist to fill volume when you cannot afford more meat.
>>22053184 Do you though? Your splanchnic and pudendal nerves must be firing like you've got them hooked up to 120. Would you even notice at this point?
>>22053200 My brain is smooth and therefore your insults flow past my brain like water on the feathers of an elegant duck. You cannot hurt me with words I am too retarded to understand you utter buffoon.
>>22053208 I will slow my words like ducks in the water. The lack of beans is causing you a lack of regularity. Because your colon is either full of water or concrete at any given time, your ass-wiring is sending your brain some funky breakbeats.
>>22053235 I am quite fond of funky breakbeats. Thank you for your explanation. I will not likely add beans to my chili with this revelation however I will partake in a a Prodigy album today in your honor.
>>22052354 I like baking my beans slightly too long and stirring vigorously. That way some of them break open and the chili gets a slightly mushy texture.
If the chili is going to be a topping (like for nachos, rice, noodles, or hotdogs) then no beans, but if you eat it on it's own then yes beans because it's just extra protein and a nice texture to add to the meat and sauce.
This is the only correct answer and anyone who says otherwise is an uncultured retard.
Depends on what you are doing with the chile. Beans are good. Over rice, mashed potatoes. You might not. Sometimes hominy instead of beans. Some times everything. Cook and eat what you like. Fuck the haters.
>>22053121 100% with you, and I'll add that IMO they completely ruin the texture of the chili. For what it's worth though I never eat chili straight, it's always a topping for other stuff.
>>22052354 i'm a broke fuck so i put beans in it. i parboil them for 15 minutes before putting them in. usually black and kidney beans. are there any other beans that could be tastier?
Chili is an ancient Mesoamerican stew consisting of tomatoes, peppers and BEANS, meat actually being optional. If there are no beans, it's not "chili".
>>22052354 I like kidney beans and golden hominy in my chili. I'm willing to bet most of the people who'd bitch about it online don't even make their own chili powder. I'm from Texas and nobody really gives a damn about it here except maybe restaurants that do it as a gimmick and even then places like the Texas Chili Parlor have options with beans. It always seems to be people from other places making a big deal about beans.
beans or no beans was always a distraction. the real dividing line is tomato or no tomato. once you start making chili without tomato the beans issue sorts itself out.