>chili >no beans pick one

>>7901286

Let's just agree that there's more than one way to make a chili.

There's the correct way.

And then there's the way where you add beans.

File: chili.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

Chili?
I think you mean Chili Con Carne

>>7901294

He seems to mean chili con carne y frijoles

>>7901306
I don't care, the point is that chili is the fucking pepper, chile is a term for 18th century spaniards, and the dish is chili con carne.
Abbreviations of names are not acceptable when the abbreviations are already words by themselves.

beans + mushrooms

beans, mushrooms, carrots, peas. No meat for me.

Tastes amazing with the right spices.

>>7901286
Beanless chili is great for chilidogs

>>7901294
>>7901306

Since when are Mexicans in charge of determining the authenticity of an American dish?

>>7901336
why are you quoting me? I'm just attacking his vocabulary. Chili is the correct term for the pepper in english, friend.

>>7901339

>chili is the correct term for the pepper in english, friend

It's also the correct name for the dish, and adding "con this" and "con that" doesn't change the fact that or the vast majority of the country it's just called "chili", and when not used as a sauce for something else it almost always has beans.

>>7901352
you know what, it doesn't even bother me, what bothers me are people that start calling the pepper "chile". And I blame the abbreviation of chili con carne.

>>7901286
I made chili with beans in it last week.
Everyone enjoyed it, therefore I don't care.

>>7901325
This

File: 541px-First_Mexican_Empire_(orthographic_projection).svg[1].png (106KB, 541x541px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 541x541px

>>7901336
Because Texas was part of Mexico (and before that part of Spain) when chili was first documented you retard. Did you flunk your American history class?

>>7901286
How about I pick both, and you fuck off.