Pepin puts beans in chili

File: 44 KB, 500x375, chili-beans2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Pepin puts beans in chili Anonymous Sun Sep 1 21:40:02 2013 No.4765221 [DELETED]

Skip to about 4:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3XYQ6jCRRU&feature=player_detailpage#t=268

Beans in chili is clearly the right way to go.

Anonymous Sun Sep 1 21:43:02 2013 No.4765232

Just as I don't trust a Chinese chef on instructions for Italian dishes, I don't trust French chefs on instructions for American dishes.
That said, I enjoy beans in chili nonetheless, but doing it because some Frenchman does it too is just silly. Do it because you like it. Don't do it if you don't like it. There should be no further discussion on the subject.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 1 21:44:02 2013 No.4765235 > because a famous chef puts beans in their chili, it is the right way to make chili. So if he didn't put beans in the chili, it would be evidence that putting beans in chili is wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 1 21:45:01 2013 No.4765243 >>4765235 Yes, but he did put beans.

Anonymous Sun Sep 1 21:47:01 2013 No.4765247 [DELETED]

File: 490 KB, 2048x1536, Peppers2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Stop this shit right now.

Seriously.

The Meso-Americans cooked ground up chilis, meat, with beans, squash, and hundreds of other ingredients in varoius places at various times.

To say beans don't belong in chili at all is insane.

However, beans do not belong in the Texas state dish, Chili con Carne. Neither do tomatoes for that fact.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 1 21:48:01 2013 No.4765250 >>4765247 Pepin was making chili con carne. Your point is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 1 21:49:02 2013 No.4765252 >>4765250 No, my point is that this thread is going to start into a stupid argument. I wasn't talking about the OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 07:31:01 2013 No.4766466 File: 44 KB, 500x375, 20111108-beef-texas-chili-con-carne-09.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Chili shouldn't look like the picture you posted, OP. That's not chili, it's bolognese with beans. Pic related: real chili.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 07:32:01 2013 No.4766468 you will notice "texas style" isnt eaten outside of texas. because it sucks, beans belong in chili

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 08:35:01 2013 No.4766561 >olive oil in chili

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 09:01:01 2013 No.4766623 >>4766561 fuck you olive oil is awesome and goes in everything

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 09:04:01 2013 No.4766631 >>4766623 >>>/out/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 09:07:01 2013 No.4766644 The way my folks made it was always like 60% beans to 40% meat, I always thought of it as a bean dish

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 09:14:01 2013 No.4766662 There are people who make chili without beans?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 09:18:02 2013 No.4766674 I like to use a can of black beans, pinto beans and kidney beans to my chili

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 09:18:02 2013 No.4766676 >>4766662 The savages.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 10:20:02 2013 No.4766788 >>4765252 No, you said that chili con carne shouldn't have beans. Pepin showed that you were wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 10:23:01 2013 No.4766797 >>4766788 >Pepin showed that you were wrong. see >>4765232

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 10:35:01 2013 No.4766825 >>4766623 shut up jamie

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 10:42:01 2013 No.4766845 [DELETED]

>>4766788
Look, I love Pepin as much as the next guy - but Chili con Carne is a specific dish that came from a product made for the early settlers of the frontier, especially in Texas. It was made by pounding dried beef, salt, and chilies together and forming them into bricks, to be reconstituted.

Chili = broad dish representing dozens of regions, and made throughout time, including in ancient times.

Chili con Carne = specific dish, referring to the product I mentioned above and any traditional beef and chili dish - and only beef and chili- cooked and eaten by Texans from the 1880s into the modern era.

What Pepin is making is chili, not chili con carne.

He's just a confused old French man, let him be.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 11:31:01 2013 No.4766941 >>4766631 ok fatso

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:06:01 2013 No.4767041 >>4766845 This is the reason why I love seeing a chilli thread. They're a goldmine for autism.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:26:01 2013 No.4767081

>French guy
>lives in Connecticut
>making chili
>doesnt even make chili puree
>doesnt even use chili peppers except a jalepeno
>puts beans in

If you really want to call this chili then I guess you can, but any faggot can make this. Real chili involves a smoked roast, either beef chuck or pork shoulder. You need to make a base for the chili using a ground and strained puree of dried chili peppers. Oh, and beans are fucking optional. The dish tastes fine without them, leave them on the side for people to add.

Obviously those without a smoker have to improvise but thats why they invented liquid smoke.

Oh and if I wasn't clear, fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:29:01 2013 No.4767090 >>4767081 >B-but muh tradishunul recipe! >He's not from the right place! Keep crying, Pepin makes better chili than you ever could.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:29:01 2013 No.4767093 >>4767081 Tips fedora

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:33:01 2013 No.4767101 >>4767090 >>4767093 I guess I could call something an onion dish if I use onion powder and a negligible amount of fresh onion. But then I'd be wrong and most likely a redneck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:34:01 2013 No.4767102 >>4767101 No you wouldn't. It would have onion in it and would taste like onion. Keep crying about your traditions while the rest of us improve on your archaic recipes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:37:01 2013 No.4767109 >>4767102 >doesnt know how to cook >gets buttmad at people who do

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:37:01 2013 No.4767110

>>4767090
Doubtful.
With all due respect to Pepin, he doesn't know shit about making chili. I just made a pot of chili yesterday, and I'd go head to head with him and win. It's not that there's any strict standard recipe for chili, but there's some basic principles that must be followed to achieve a good pot of chili. Pepin, god love him, is lacking the knowledge of those principles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:38:01 2013 No.4767117 >>4767101 Lel keep Austin weird! Texas 4 lyf! XD

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:43:01 2013 No.4767125 >>4767110 >I'd go head to head with him and win Doubtful.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:48:01 2013 No.4767134 >>4767117 When making a curry do you make your own masala or do you buy powdered shit from the store? >still doesnt know how to cook

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:53:01 2013 No.4767147

>>4767125
And how would you know? Just because you're a shitty cook doesn't mean everyone here is. Stop reflecting your own insecurities onto others. Yes, my chili would win over Pepins. Any day. I love that guy, he's one of my favorite tv chefs, I grew up watching him on PBS, but he doesn't know how to make a great chili. That's just the facts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:57:02 2013 No.4767157 >>4767147 >implying I'm a shitty cook Projecting much?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:05:01 2013 No.4767179 >>4767157 Nice try, but that's a fail. If you weren't a shitty cook, you wouldn't be arguing so hard that someone couldn't make better chili than Pepin. Only someone with blissful ignorance puts all their eggs in the baskets of television chefs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:09:01 2013 No.4767188 >>4767179 Well in a contest between a chef established to be good, and some random guy on 4chan who claims to be better than said professional, I'm sure not going to believe the random anon.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:36:02 2013 No.4767274

>>4765221
Does anyone else like to add other things to chili?

I put in diced carrots, chopped veggies, beans to make it an all in one easy meal.

Quick simple and makes it tastier, although not-authentic. I call it California Chili, kinda like how California pizza innovated pizza.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:37:02 2013 No.4767277 >>4767274 Yup, I add carrots and peppers. Texture is good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:38:02 2013 No.4767283 >>4767274 Sounds pretty good, I'll have to try that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:43:02 2013 No.4767299 is Pepin /ck/ approved ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:44:02 2013 No.4767301 >>4767299 Yes. You are now allowed to like him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:48:01 2013 No.4767309 >>4767301 thank you

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:07:01 2013 No.4767360

>>4767188
This isn't contest, you fucknut. It's a discussion, in which you have failed at the most basic conversation by being not only arguementative, but ignorant to the views and opinions of people who might surely know more of the topic than you do. I seriously hope you're not so pig-headed and contrary in real life. That's just sad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:08:01 2013 No.4767364 >>4767360 >>Yes, my chili would win over Pepins. Any day. And you say I'm the one approaching it like a contest.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:13:01 2013 No.4767376

>>4767102
>archaic recipes.

But anon, one of the reasons people still bother to cook is because fresh ingredients always taste better than old, dried, powdered, heavily processed ingredients. You're not seriously claiming onion soup made with store-bought onion powder is better than made with real onions, are you?

Claiming something as 'archaic' and therefore bad is a terrible argument.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:16:02 2013 No.4767381

And actually, while I'm here - why is it that it's only chili where authenticity is mocked rather than praised? Cook anything else using the correct ingredients in a way that gives it an authentic flavor, and everyone cheers you on. But suddenly with chili, all these guys come out of the woodwork and claim that not only is it acceptable to put beans and tomatoes and carrots and whatever else in a meat and chili pepper stew (which obviously it is, cook what you like, there's no cooking police), but that this is just as authentic as what Texans would call chili and has just as much claim to the name (it doesn't), and that in fact anyone who makes chili using slow-cooked chunks of beef along with a variety of rehydrated dried chili peppers, plus a few aromatics and spices, is an autistic faggot redneck, whereas making something with tons of beans, tomatoes, veggies, ground beef etc. and barely a real chili pepper in sight is somehow better (it fucking isn't).

Why are you guys so defensive about your spicy bean bolognese? I'm sure it's delicious, but it's not the same thing as real chili, which tastes great and you really ought to try sometime. You're allowed to make both, you know. When people say that chili ought to be made from simmered beef chunks and have a sauce made mainly of blended chili peppers, they're saying this because they feel that version is delicious and superior, not because they're trying to trick you.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:22:01 2013 No.4767401

>>4765247
>To say beans don't belong in chili at all is insane.
Or ignorant. Or simply trolling.

>However, beans do not belong in the Texas state dish, Chili con Carne. Neither do tomatoes for that fact.
Just as an FYI for all the Texan 'purists', the earliest written record of chilli in Texan say it was served with beans.

>>4767274
>Does anyone else like to add other things to chili?
>I put in diced carrots
Lots of 'modern' chillis start with a mirepoix/sofrito base (onions, carrots and celery, often with garlic). After years of making my chillis a different way I was doubtful at first but after trying it it's transformational and hugely improves the flavour IMB. I probably won't ever do chilli without a mirepoix base unless I had no choice, it would be tantamount to leaving out the cumin for me and chilli without cumin is barely worth eating.

Personally I think the carrot and celery shouldn't be identifiably present in the finished dish except flavour-wise, so I very finely mince the celery and grate the carrot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:23:01 2013 No.4767404 >>4767376 I didn't say that. I just said that it would still be an onion dish.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:26:01 2013 No.4767410

>>4767404
You did say 'keep crying about your traditions while the rest of us improve on your archaic recipes' in response to someone complaining about this guy's chili barely including any real chilies. So you can sort of see how I got that from it, no?

And did you and >>4767401 ever consider that Texans say chili shouldn't have beans or tomatoes, but should have its sauce made from a variety of chili peppers, not because of 'traditions' but because that's tastier? Traditionally the beef would be dried, too, but they don't go on about that - only that the sauce should be chili based, not tomato based, and it should be a primarily meat dish, not a stew full of veggies. It's because this makes it taste great, not because it's authentic despite tasting worse or anything like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:51:02 2013 No.4767467 You need beans in chili. Otherwise it's just a spicy bolognese.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:54:01 2013 No.4767475

>>4767381
>why is authenticity mocked in chili
Because at the end of the day there is no such thing as "authentic" chili anymore. We flat out don't know which version was THE version and can't know that, yet people will argue the point that chili should/shouldn't have this/that in it with the same vigor for which they'd defend their own child's life.

Also, they're generally Texans, and Texans really fucking suck.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:54:01 2013 No.4767476

>>4767467
You need to make a sauce from several different kinds of rehydrated, blended chiles, use chunks of beef rather than ground, omit the tomatoes and possibly beans, and simmer it long and slow. Otherwise it's just a spicy bolognese with beans in it.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 16:39:02 2013 No.4767719

Think about this, you can't have chili without meat. Vegetarians and vegans pls go. You cannot have just beans and chilis and call it chili, that is not chili. Animal fat gives the chili a distinct flavor, combined with all the other ingredients. Let us list the base ingredients you need for a chili:

1. Meat in some form. Some people like ground some people like chunks. I prefer making pulled pork/beef and using that in my chili, but it is really up to you.
2. A puree/paste of dried chilis. You have carte blanche with this one as long as you make some sort of base with the chilis.
3. Garlic
4. Mexicanish spices i.e. oregano, cumin, basil.
5. Water/broth

As long as you have these four you can make something that counts as chili. Obviously we all like to add things like beans, tomatoes, etc etc. I kind of go crazy with all my ingredients but you can make the simplest chili or a complex one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 16:51:02 2013 No.4767750 >>4767719 Euro here. How do I make a decent chili paste? What chilies go in there?

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 16:54:01 2013 No.4767767

>>4767475

>Because at the end of the day there is no such thing as "authentic" chili anymore. We flat out don't know which version was THE version and can't know that,

Agreed 100%. It's peasant food. Comfort food. The only real "requirement" is that it contains some kind of chili pepper, hence the name. But there is no single authentic version, it's a stew that's made with whatever meat or veggies you have available cooked in a base of chili peppers.

>Also, they're generally Texans

What I find so ironic about this is that I've lived in Texas for 32 years now and I have NEVER seen anyone here complain about beans in chili (or any other recipe variation). I have no idea where this "lol in Texas there's no beans in chili" comes from. Most adult males that I know here in Tx cook chili, and nobody really cares about beans or not. They might get in a fight over which is the best brand of whiskey (or dip--the tobacco variety, not the food), but nobody seems to care much about exactness in a chili recipe. I have no idea where this strange legend about Texas chili comes from.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 16:59:02 2013 No.4767785

>>4767750
I like to get a few chipotles maybe 3-5, a good bunch of guajilos anywhere between 6 and 12 depending on the size of your chili, and a few anchos, maybe 4 - 6.

This can all be modified by size of the dish. The recipe for the paste is simple. Cut the stems off of the peppers and chop them coarse. Put the chiles in a pot then cover with water and put about another .5 inch of water in. Bring to a boil and turn the heat down to medium low and let it simmer for a good hour. Then take the chiles out and blend/process with a cup or two of the chile water. Make sure its a nice consistency then strain out whatevers left and there you have it.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:05:02 2013 No.4767799

>>4767750

Chili is a very free-form dish; you can choose whatever peppers you like (and are available). I would recommend using a combination of different types of chilies (if at all possible) as the flavor gets much better by combining different kinds.

I usually use dried anchos, dried generic red chilis (same ones used in Chinese cooking), along with some fresh jalapenos and habaneros. Those are my go-tos since they are readily available in my area. I use the Anchos to make various sauces too, and since they (and the Chinese style ones) last so long I always have those in my pantry. I sometimes add others if I come across them: currently it's Green Chili season in New Mexico so there's tons of "Hatch" green chilies available now. I threw in a couple of those when I last made chili 2 weeks ago. I've used scotch bonnets, naga jolokia, and serranos and they were all good.

anyway, my normal procedure is something like this: brown the meat first in the bottom of your pot. Remove the meat, set aside temporarily. Then cook your onions & chilies in the pot--while the onions & chilies are sweating down it will deglaze the meat drippings from the pot. Once the veggies are soft (after about 10 min or so) then add the meat back, top up with your liquid (beer, stock, etc.) then go from there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:07:01 2013 No.4767803 >>4767785 >>4767799 Thanks guys. Availablity of chilies will probably kill this idea.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:12:01 2013 No.4767817

>>4767803

What kinds of chilis can you get? Do you have an "international" section in your supermarkets? Canned jalapenos and chipotles (chipotles are smoked jalapenos) seem to be widely available. I've also seen canned red chilies of some kind in the Italian section of my supermarket but I cannot read the can so I don't know exactly what variety they are.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:26:02 2013 No.4767850

>>4767410
>And did you and >>4767401 ever consider that Texans say chili shouldn't have beans or tomatoes, but should have its sauce made from a variety of chili peppers, not because of 'traditions' but because that's tastier?
Not even for a second. Because you know what? That's a judgement call.

I think the dish is far far more complex and flavourful when it includes tomato in the same way that I think it's far better with garlic than without. Now obviously some people like it very tomato-ey but my take on it is that it shouldn't have an excess of tomato (I mean in terms of flavour, not amount/volume). IMO the tomato is just there for body and a background note since this isn't a ragu flavoured with chilli, it's full-on a chilli sauce.

>>4767719
Rhetorical question mode: you know there are self-styled purists who say there shouldn't be garlic *or* cumin in it, right? Because both of those are introduced foodstuffs that the Azteks didn't have available to them.

And on top of that it shouldn't be made with beef, naturally, but one of the available game animals native to the area (antelope or deer IIRC).

>>4767799
>I would recommend using a combination of different types of chilies (if at all possible) as the flavor gets much better by combining different kinds.
Totally agree. I try to always use at least 3 now, more if I have them on hand (3 dried, 1 fresh would be usual for me with the fresh being habs or Scotch bonnets). Compared to just using generic chilli powder of dubious heat there's no comparison when you can stack or layer the flavour of a number of different kinds.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:31:01 2013 No.4767864

>>4767803
Can you get any fresh chillis at all where you live?

What about paprika, chilli powder and cayenne? If those three at least are commonly available there like they are here you can take a decent stab at it. Although it'll be missing some of the specific flavour from some of the American chilli strains you will be making higher-tier chilli than otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:34:02 2013 No.4767875 >>4765221 Looks like some nice bean soup , OP

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:37:02 2013 No.4767890

>>4767864

keep in mind that "chili powder" is a pretty meaningless name; it's just a variety of common spices in a packet, usually the aforementioned cayenne and paprika, perhaps with some garlic powder or other flavoring added. There's nothing wrong with either of those but chances are that the "chili powder" is just duplicating the paprika and cayenne.

of course there's no reason to limit yourself to "American" chilies; whatever kind you can find will work well. even plain 'ol "bell peppers" (I think those are called simply "capsicums" in parts of Europe) have a nice flavor, you just need to add something with some more heat.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:37:02 2013 No.4767893

>>4767850
>I think it's far better with garlic than without. Now obviously some people like it very tomato-ey but my take on it is that it shouldn't have an excess of tomato (I mean in terms of flavour, not amount/volume). IMO the tomato is just there for body and a background note since this isn't a ragu flavoured with chilli, it's full-on a chilli sauce.

I pretty much agree with this. Especially the "it's not a ragu flavored with chili" thing. But I think that's just what people are complaining about - chili that's just bolognese with a token shake of chili powder. As for the beans, again I don't think it's any particular objection to beans as an ingredient that people have, it's when they're added whole and float in there alongside the meat. These people just prefer chili as a dish of meat in sauce, not a full-on stew, and I'd wager they'd be fine about, for example, adding some refried beans into the sauce, but not fine about adding big chunks of carrot in there.

Really I think peoples' objection is less about a set of arbitrary rules, and more mild annoyance at seeing something totally different than what they know and love as chili, being referred to as it. Like you said, chili isn't spicy ragu, and that's what people get pissy about, not 'muh competition rules' or anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 17:39:01 2013 No.4767899 File: 2.17 MB, 300x169, 1377899915680.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4765221 pepin is my /ck/-related waifu I don't care how chili is made either

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 18:09:02 2013 No.4767978

>>4767850
Didn't know the aztecs didn't have garlic or cumin. That sucks. Garlic, onions and cumin were introducted with the Spanish conquest, 500 or so years ago. I'd say garlic, onions and cumin have been Mexican staples for long enough to satisfy a purist. We're not making traditional Aztec cuisine after all. It's pretty Tex-Mex as far as I'm concerned.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 18:10:02 2013 No.4767985

>>4767978

Agreed. Claiming that cumin or garlic cannot be used in Chili because it's "not authentic because they didn't have that 1000's of years ago" is like saying that Italian food cannot contain tomatoes because they didn't have them until they were imported from the "new world".

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 18:15:01 2013 No.4767995 >>4765221 I love the unpretentious nature of this guy. Probably my favorite chef.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 18:22:01 2013 No.4768011 >>4765221 Thanks for the fun video, trollman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 18:26:01 2013 No.4768018 Moreover Chili is from texas, not mexico (anymore lel)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 18:30:01 2013 No.4768027 >>4765221 >Dat easy as fuck desert Looks awesome.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 18:55:02 2013 No.4768090

>>4767890
Amerifat here, chili powder is powdered chilies. It tells you on the back it's assorted powdered chilies and some chemicals to keep it from clumping.
Having ground some real peppers up and tasted the both of them, Chili Powder is just powdered chilies left on a shelf and of "dubious heat" as someone said before. Use enough and you'll have plenty of chili flavor, just not as good as the fresher stuff.

If your spices come in a packet, therein lies the problem. A packet from a chili kit is going to be vague, but even then I don't think I've ever seen a full-on spice blend marketed as 'chili powder"

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:02:01 2013 No.4768113

>>4767890
>keep in mind that "chili powder" is a pretty meaningless name; it's just a variety of common spices in a packet,
FYI that's an American thing. In other parts of the world chilli powder is just that: powdered chilli. Nothing else.

>>4767985
Totally agree and good analogy. I've no problem if someone wants to take a stab at making the ancestral dish as authentically as possible, as long as they're not trying to pretend that it has much to do with the dish as it's cooked today.

If I had the ingredients available I'd certainly like to try a pre-Columbian version at least once, same as with some medieval recipes I've tried. But I don't expect I'll think it's a patch on the modern dish. I've yet to try a pure historical recipe that I'd prefer over something similar made to modern tastes.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:14:02 2013 No.4768132

>>4768113
I'm a little confused why anyone would even say that to begin with, since chili con carne as the dish we're talking about now is a texan cowboy thing, not purely mesoamerican. Personally I don't give a fuck what you put in, and will try putting in anything and everything in the dish myself, but with the goal of making a meaty stew consisting of tender chunks of beef in a chili pepper flavored sauce, not of making a spicy ragu with beans. Whether this is authentic or not doesn't matter to me - having tried both varieties I find the kind that uses a range of dried peppers to make the sauce vastly superior to the one that's heavily tomato-based, and think chunks of beef have a far better texture than the thin, almost soup-like dish you get from using ground beef.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:21:01 2013 No.4768149

>>4767381
>why is it that it's only chili where authenticity is mocked rather than praised?
1) As mentioned before, no one really knows what's "authentic" in chili, and hell, there are very similar native dishes that massively predate anything called chili that would actually make a better case for being "authentic".
2) A certain class of cretin wants the word chili to only refer to one style of chili that about all you can say about it being "authentic" is it probably isn't because of the aforementioned native dishes.
3) The people who want chili to refer to one and only one style of chili really fucking suck. Like, I honestly wouldn't mind them all dying horribly of cancer level of suck, and I'm a nice guy.
4) No one would give a damn if people were like "well that's not Texas State Chili Con Carne" instead of "FUCK YOU ASSWIPE! THAT AIN'T CHILI BECAUSE PONCHO VILLA FUCKED A HORSE ON TUESDAY! THAT'S JUST SPICY SKETTI SAUCE"

I mean fuck, this isn't like it's a french mother sauce that has been rigidly codified. It was food people threw in a pot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:23:02 2013 No.4768152 Hey, all of y'all. This post right here >>4768132 is one of those cretins I told you about here >>4768149

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:24:02 2013 No.4768153 [DELETED]

I see the idiots here don't get it still.

There are 2 different things.

1. Chili - put whatever you want in it, but it needs chili peppers.

2. Chili con carne - the specific texas dish that's just beef and peppers. Might have other seasonings, but not beans because that's just not how it was made in Texas.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:27:01 2013 No.4768162 [DELETED]

>>4767890
No, in America there are three different powdered peppers:

1. Paprika - a sweet powder, made from bell peppers. We use the sweet version of paprika, a Hungarian spice.

2. Chile Powder - Usually dried and powdered New Mexic/Anaheim/Colorado chiles. Not the same thing as the blend of spices called Chili Powder.

3. Cayenne - Dried and powdered cayenne pepper.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:30:01 2013 No.4768178 >>4768113 The historical chile recipes are a huge variety dude. It would have been any dish with a significant portion of chile peppers.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:31:02 2013 No.4768181

>>4768152
You didn't even read it, did you?

I'll summarize in nice friendly greentext for you:

>I don't understand why some people would be so anal about chili that they would refuse to use any ingredients that aren't native to the Americas, since the concept of chili as a named dish began after the New World had already been settled in by Europeans, ergo those ingredients would have been available for use in chili right from the beginning.
>Use what you like in chili, but personally I prefer to make it as a dish of tender cubes of meat in a chili-based and flavored sauce, rather than ground beef and chunks of veggies in a tomato-heavy sauce. I do this for taste reasons, not muh authenticity.

I hope you get double cancer and leprosy, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:34:02 2013 No.4768189 >>4768181 Actually you are quite incorrect. The dish didn't just have some notion or come into being with the Europeans - the word itself is STRAIGHT from the Nuhuatl language of the Aztecs - it is still spoken by over a million people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:35:01 2013 No.4768191 >>4768189 The particular combination of beef, chili peppers, onions, garlic, and oregano did though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:37:01 2013 No.4768199 >>4768191 Yeah because they did not have the same kind of garlic here. They had the other ingredients. However, that's such a narrow, Americanized view of a chili dish. Everything else existed there, including Oregano.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:37:01 2013 No.4768200

>>4768181
No, I read it. I especially took note of your derisive phrasing of types of chili not of your preference. It doesn't matter that you couched it with "It doesn't matter if its authentic or not", you still have the hate-spewing, shitposting arrogance of those who argue for the One True Way, but instead of coming from the direction of authenticity, you try to build your argument on your biased personal preferences.

Don't bother with chemo, you won't live either way.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:39:01 2013 No.4768204

>>4768200
>derisive phrasing of types of chili not of your preference.

Gee whiz, anon, it's almost as if people talk fondly of food they like, and poorly of food they don't!

Get fucked. I don't think my way is the One True Way. I think it's tastier. Note the words 'I' and 'think' in that. It's not a fact, it's my fucking opinion. Just because some faggots treat their opinion as fact, doesn't mean everyone who shares that opinion does too.

Literally throw yourself off a high building, please. Post here after you've done it, I want to make sure.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:46:01 2013 No.4768222

>>4768204
You treat yours just as much a fact as the other evangelical psychos out there. Hell, look at how you talk about "the thin, almost soup-like dish you get from using ground beef." Here you project your horribly mistaken idea that there cannot be a thick ground beef based chili onto all chili made as though thickness were a function purely of the cut of meat. You then use this baseless and ignorant claim to dismiss the entirety of that style. Yes, you may prefer whole cuts, but your reasoning for preferring such are wrong.

If you're a guy, I hope it's both colon and testicular cancer. If you're a girl, I hope it's both colon and testicular cancer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:49:02 2013 No.4768228 >>4768222 Dude, grow up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:51:01 2013 No.4768234 >>4768228 At least acknowledge and own your hypocrisy. Hell, you're a bit worse than the bean/no bean people because you are just as dogmatic and self-righteous but think you are coming from a higher moral ground.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:52:01 2013 No.4768239 >>4768234 Not the same guy, but I don't think that guy deserves that. At least he isn't dousing heirloom veggies in processed sauces like that retard in the other thread.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:53:01 2013 No.4768241

>>4768222
>You treat yours just as much a fact as the other evangelical psychos out there.

I just don't know how you can claim this. What do you expect me to do, other than write 'I think' and 'in my opinion'? Of course I'm going to defend my preferred style of the dish. Of course I'm going to dismiss styles that I don't like. Why do you expect me to give a balanced view of all sides? I'm just one guy, in my limited experience cooking chili, it's tastier when I do it the way I prefer, and less tasty when I do it the way I don't prefer. If I'm not even allowed to express a preference without that making me an evangelical psycho, what's even the point of this fucking board? Do you want nobody to talk about their preferences on anything, and just say "everything is great!" and mindless praise everything that's posted up here?

>>4768228 wasn't even me, but I agree with the sentiment. Preferably grow up into a fast-moving ceiling fan.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:56:01 2013 No.4768252

>>4768241
This guy here, had a thought - do you just not believe me that I'm speaking of my opinion, because chili is so often the source of angry arguments from both sides? If I were saying my preference about a dish nobody gives a fuck about, would you be more okay to accept it's just my personal opinion?

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:04:02 2013 No.4768283

>>4768252
>>4768241
There's a difference between stating a preference and being a dogmatic prick. That you can't understand that is beyond my ability to fix.

As for your "why do you expect me to give a balanced view": I don't. However, you seemed to either believe you were giving a balanced view or to try to fool others into believing such. It's just like you keep wafting from being a One True Way person and not..this happens because you believe your way is the only way but know that you'll be shit on if you proclaim it as such, thus you pussy out of claiming it as the One True Way. Your tone, your word choice all screams One True Way, but you couch things in ways that try to be balanced: Hypocrisy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:04:02 2013 No.4768284 >>4765221 >this thread tl;dr Anyway, I put beans in my chili. Why? Because I like it that way obviously. I don't really give a flying fuck what other people thing qualifies as chili or not. I'm a native Texan btw.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:05:01 2013 No.4768291 >>4768284 Fair enough, but do you call if Chili con Carne, implying it is the state dish? That's the distinction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:05:01 2013 No.4768294 >>4768153 Pepin disagrees with you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:08:02 2013 No.4768307 >>4768294 No,h e did not discuss the differences. He probably isn't even aware of the Texas state dish.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:11:01 2013 No.4768316

>>4768283
I never pretended I was giving a balanced view, anon. I just posted that I like doing things one way rather than another, and gave my reasons.

I honestly don't see what you want me to do differently. Why should I have to be nice about things I don't like? What's wrong with me saying that in my opinion, tomatoey, thin chilies are inferior? I'm allowed to say anything else is inferior, aren't I? Am I allowed to express a preference on how I like my steak, or does that make me an evangelical psycho too? Or do I have to put constant disclaimers that I think well-done steaks are just as good as medium are just as good as rare? If so then what's even the point of stating my opinion?

Please, tell me - how was my opinion, outright stated as an opinion, more objectionable and self-righteous than the post made by OP, in which he claims that 'clearly' putting beans in chili 'is' the 'right' way to go? That's talking about it as though it's a fact. Mine was an opinion labeled as an opinion. Could it be that you think he's more allowed to express his opinion, even talk about it as though it's factual, simply because it isn't the particular opinion you dislike so much?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:19:01 2013 No.4768343 you're al cunts get out of my ck

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:19:01 2013 No.4768345 Beans are filler in chili. Put them in if you want more food for your money, but if you're rich, there's no need for them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:23:02 2013 No.4768356 >>4768307 He called it chili con carne. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:26:01 2013 No.4768360 >>4768356 No, I'll forgive the old man though because I love him dearly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:51:02 2013 No.4768423 >>4768283 oi m80! u got no answer to this >>4768316 eh? left ave u m8? lel knew it #rekt

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 05:42:02 2013 No.4769473

>>4768149
>and I'm a nice guy.
Evidence suggests that you're not.

>>4768153
>2. Chili con carne - the specific texas dish that's just beef and peppers. Might have other seasonings, but not beans because that's just not how it was made in Texas.
>just beef and peppers
>not beans ... in Texas
See post by Texan above which argues strongly that this is not actually the case.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 07:26:56 2013 No.4769575

>>4768423
Or I might have a life and just use 4chan to kill time.

The response is simple: if you can't see how being a hypocrite and a prick aren't good communication methods, then I just can't help.

>>4769473
>Evidence suggests your not.
Nah mate, I give to charity, help people with flat tires, and generally try to make the world a slightly better place.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 11:09:06 2013 No.4769886

>>4769575
So you respond to that, but you still haven't been able to tell me why stating my opinion makes me a hypocrite and a dogmatic prick?

No, anon, I'm afraid you are in the wrong here. I don't understand why chili has got you so riled up, but seriously, people are allowed to have preferences for this dish too. You're only a dogmatic prick when you tell everyone else that their preferences are objectively wrong and that only people who agree with you are correct. Just having a preference isn't wrong. Telling people what your preference is, isn't wrong. Saying negative things about the variants you don't favor, isn't wrong.

I'M ALLOWED TO PREFER THE TASTE OF CHILI WHEN COOKED A CERTAIN WAY. EVEN - and I know this is shocking to you - EVEN WHEN THAT WAY INVOLVES SOME (but not all!) OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE GET DOGMATIC ABOUT AND CLAIM IS THE 'AUTHENTIC' WAY OF DOING THINGS.

Your perspective is definitely one of the more crazy ones I've seen around here. I don't know if I'd call you a dogmatic prick, just ultra-paranoid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 11:15:06 2013 No.4769898 >>4769575 IME people who are genuinely nice folks don't feel the need to mention it. Just saying.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ck/ - Food & Cooking