Stoicism rant

 Work in progress

In Mark Fischer’s Capitalist Realism, Fischer says that much of the left has come to accept the conclusion that capitalism is something that will stay, so the efforts of the left (or at least Liberal 2.0) have changed from dismantling capitalist institutions to mitigating whatever inevitable effects of it occur.

This is like a stoic perspective of capitalism, where they come to accept the influence and nature of capitalism as out of their control, so their goals switch from their original motive. In that respect, the philosophy of stoicism does not mesh with a struggle that requires dismantling of that system of Capitalism which appears to be inevitable, seeing how much it’s being propagandized to be in tune with human nature. 

Like in a broader sense, stoicism appears to have internal contradiction with people who are in a struggle, and so a purpose. 

However a lot of people can take stoicism with a grain of salt, and apply that to first-world situations like if we get into a car crash, the person we ask out who rejects us or if it starts to heavily rain when we are out jogging

I see Stoicism as a philosophy of the individual. This is why it has uses in the above situations. But I don’t think this can be used to the acceptance of a perceived unjust system.

Epictus’ realms of influence (dividing what we can control and what we can't control) seems to have a use in our immediate environment. But that doesn’t stop one from trying to change the economic/political system if we view it as unjust; the protocols of Stoicism only apply to your behaviors and thoughts as we pursue that goal. I.e. when met with obstacles and becoming upset you can recognize and recalibrate the individual emotional/psychological responses you have in a similar way that you would if it rained during your jog.

I also don’t think it is necessary to preclude political action against a system that seems to be inevitable, as your view of events can be wrong, which in and of itself can be challenged within a Stoic framework and practice. “Everything is what you judge it to be” - Marcus Aurelius

Stoicism appears to have internal contradiction with those people with a struggle, and those people with a purpose.

I don’t really see this now either. The following quote is from Meditations: “Do not wander from your path any longer… Hasten then to the goal, lay idle hopes aside and come to your own help, if you care for yourself, while you still may.”  This illustrates the Stoic’s perception of life as a struggle and the need for one to pursue onwards with a goal despite this struggle, given the allotted time we have is finite.

I think the left and maybe some Liberal 2.0s actually are simply t too cozy to ever do what it takes to have a revolution. They don’t want to envision a world where they can’t order door dash right to their doors.

Something,et al momentarily red faced capitalists.

Maybe people just think that that since Cato was a Stoic, then that means that the Cato Institute must too be Stoic. Then, if the Cato Institute is full of baloney, then Stoicism must also be full of baloney.

The truth is most people are not too strong logician wise whether they are on the right , Liberal 2.0, middle or left politically. 

Americans most certainly are for the most part not taught critical thinking skills because most of their parents don’t have a clue about it and don’t teach that to them. Moreover, the school systems are not focused on teaching students to be critical thinkers, but instead teaching them on becoming productive and agreeable worker bees in The System.

The perceived fatalism found in Stoicism has been disputed by currents Stoics like William B Irvine. Now, if that really qualifies depends on if we would or would not include moderns into the same conversation as the ancients (this is not inclusive of pop. stoic self-help gurus such as Ryan Holiday). 

I don’t foresee the argument that Stoicism encourages “accepting our lot in life whatever said lot may be” convincing, and even more so not convincing when it comes to issues of politics. A lot of Stoics advocated for being active citizens and for attending to injustices.

Cosmopolitanism is a core feature. But I don’t know how that is incompatible with being a philosophy that is focused on individuals and the ways that the individual behaves in this world. 

I do not mean that Stoicism is a philosophy that calls for a type of social or political individualism, but instead that the practice of Stoicism is concerned mostly with the individual and what that individual has actual power and influence over (like self, thoughts, reactions etc.

You got to be amused about the right-wing peeps trying to co-opt a type of stoicism to radicalize incels. 

This includes Jordan Peterson, Bronze Age creeper t to Lindy Man a la Paul Skallas. It typically begins with very general obvious life advice and then traffics in strange mysticism and plays to some kind of masculinity that’s been “lost to time.” You’ll get a guy who loathes “the left” saying “it’s lindy” to become awake to natural sunlight, since that’s the way the ancients have done it and people eat that up like candy.

When a sucker buys into this type of sheet bore I believe that person no longer needs Karl Marx or class analysis. Success and failure is really up to you. The people who are successful become more entrenched in this type of belief system and the people who don’t do so simply become more bitter and hostile of their own genes or the “soft decadent society” which they are have no way out from. This is the danger of using stoicism as a totalizing fully explainable worldview instead of merely as a personal code of ethics

NGL I am not against some of the overall ethos/worldview of Lindyman in centrist doses, I don't believe he's a quack in the same vein that BAP or Jordan Peterson are. Like with any conservative-adjacent ideology however, it clearly has the risk of slippery sloping into uncritical RETVRNposting

The 'Capitalism is here to stay let's mitigate the damage it does' mindset is real a thing for a lot of center to center-left "liberals", so depending on whether or not you include left-leaning liberals as part of our definition of "the left", the answer is that much of "the left" does support stoicism, or maybe does so in a slightly different type of way than I point out way above.

Liberals aren’t really center left. They are more center right if they are anything. They don’t even support universal healthcare for Pete's sake

Stoicism is all about being rugged and tough. Liberalism 2.0 and some leftism has a 'being a victim' mentality attached to it

Leftists and Liberals probably don't like Stoicism, and doubly so since the rightoids claim it. They believe to be stoic you never work on fixing the issues of the world and constantly only work on fixing yourself. Two of the more famous Stoics were politicians. Nelson Mandela was also a stoic. He said that stoicism got him through prison and assisted him in not hating the white minority as a whole, but instead hating the white ruling elite that were behind apartheid. This sounds pretty based and anti-idpol in my opinion 

Early Stoic writer Zenon of Citium wrote "Republic" as his first book due to Plato's republic in much of a political mindset 

He promoted that humans are similar to an animal herd in state, so to remain alive they should work for the "common good" (this was initially a Stoic term), so working for common good is really the natural way and anything that is against it is unnatural and thus is against justice. 

Justice is very much important for Stoics. Even Marcus Aurelius (who was extremely nationalistic) sometimes would say "Dont get angry at who do not know your tongue" . Moreover, Stoics were also against slavery. One of the most well known stoics was in fact, an ex-slave.

Well, I don't view Marcus Aurilias as a politician as much as he was a "benign" absolute monarch. I fancy the term “enlightened despot” though myself.

Emperors were on a lot weaker ground than is commonly understood. They totally had to be politicians--and actually good ones if they wanted to stay alive, or at minimum be remembered in a positive way.

Sure there were those who sucked at being politicians and who were tyrants, but that more times than not ended badly for them.

It truly always ends up poorly. I’m not certain there was a Roman tyrant that DIDN’T get murdered for being terrible. If they did they were the uncommon exception. Not that it had much meaning to the people that suffered horrifically under them at the same time they lasted however

It's quite subjective. Obviously people such as Caligula and Commodus were merc'd, yet that's not saying a lot since only about 25 percent of emperors died without being murdered. https://historyofyesterday.com/roman-emperor-9c4f67f5d36e

I do say that most of the ones which survived are commonly viewed as the "good" ones, but what is seen as "good" to the Romans isn't seen as good to us. Augustus did a lot of messed up stuff. I basically depends on the era, with some of them having more unilateral power, and others having less. They had it coming!

He oversaw the most widespread, most powerful country in the known world

It surely was the most powerful place in Europe for sure, but did they have more power than the Parthian or Chinese empires?

It was at the age he was ruling it. There were empires out there too at different times that can be seen as more powerful. But at the time of his ruling, Rome was the most powerful country on planet Earth

To be fair you can for sure be a politician who is committed to explicitly making the government worse off. Just observe at any libertarian

Sure, but that's still being engaged in attempting to change the status quo.

Who am I talking of? Seneca, Cicero or Boethius?

But maybe the view that I wrote above that some people have of Stoicism above is correct

The two most political stoics that jump to mind for me are Seneca and Boethius, and both seemed more focussed upon how to seek consolation in philosophy when living under tyranny. I'm unaware of stoicism really being a call to action?

"you have to assemble your life yourself. Action by action""If you don't have a consistent goal in life, you can't live it in a consistent way""If something is humanly possible, it's attainable by you too" Marcus Aurelius

Those are all good motivational quotes, but a few lines does not make a philosophy good or usable. 

Well, Marcus did write a lot more quotes too.

Also there are meditations. The whole entire book is just small tidbits like above

The complete book IS essentially that. It’s the reason it is so accessible but not really a scholarly philosophical textbook. He was a bit preoccupied with the whole keeping the Roman Empire afloat thingy.

Yeah. It's not actually philosophy, what it is are words of wisdom such that - way way similar to the Tao Tse-Ching or Proverbs of the Judeo Christian Bible

This practically sums up the problem.

To those you point to - philosophy is discarded and ignored in no sweat if it doesn't further what their goals are

Stoicism as far as I can tell is a wonderful philosophical ideal, with many benefits for mental health especially. If more people were a little tad more stoic, I actually believe society would be better off.

After all - stoicism really just means not letting things that are ultimately meaningless to get us upset or to harm us. It means recognizing that whatever we may consider as important just may not actually be so- that we are creating this importance ourself, and that doing that improperly leads to unneeded conflict and malcontent.

I wouldn't take it to its logical end, personally - this is because the logical conclusion to stoicism is to embrace "whatever" happens to us or to our society at large without us ever doing anything to make any type of change or to care about what is "best." 

Marcus Aurelius (who is very well known for his "Meditations 'book'") appears to use this concept of some sort of universal force or Logos to apply meaning after all - if we assume that is what happens, is happening in accordance to that will. That part of the philosophy I see as being essentially not dissimilar from religious doctrine, but without that I am unable to embrace stoicism wholey. 

But in moderation it is a useful concept . Which is what I believe about many other philosophies.

They're getting the Stoics mixed up with Epicurus, since he was the person who said that people should withdraw from politics. There's always been a overal confusion with Stoicism and Epicureanism since they share some similarities. Of course, Epicureanism has its appeal.

The modern liberal 2.0 and some leftists achieve more of its philosophical underpinnings than it feels comfortable conceding from psychotherapy. These liberal 2.0ers and rarer leftists still fundamentally adhere to a catharsis model of human emotional regulation that hasn't come from any empirical evidence. More pop psych plays into the true ways that the current crop of liberal 2.0ers and some rarer leftists believes we need to handle our emotions than any type of critical theory.

I would say that’s because most urban liberal 2.0ers either have undergone one type of psychotherapy or another, or they got family members/loved ones who have themselves. Being “neurotic“ is viewed as normal among the educated urbanites, a perception that comes in no small part by way of various books and movies that popularized it from the mid 20th century onward.

At the same time, in the conservative US, it remains way more socially NOT acceptable to talk about your mental and emotional problems out in the open with even with close friends and extended family, to say nothing of people not in your lives. 

That has gradually thankfully has changed because of TV pop shrinks like Dr. Phil etc., but there’s still more stigma about being neurotic or emotionally troubled on the right side of the political spectrum. For a lot of people on the liberal 2.0 side and a few on the left however, they wear it nearly like a badge of honor.

A popular manifestation and patently false example of this is the belief that a person with, say, anger problems is in need of a safe place to channel that anger how they want. In other words, anger is similar to air in a balloon. If you put too much pressure on it inside for very long, you'll, "pop." If you just allow some air of it out your anger will deflate and ends up becoming manageable.

According to said model, if you're mad and feel like getting physically violent, a pinata in an empty room gifts you a safe target to go to town on. Get as violent as can be until you don't feel mad anymore..

In reality, this isn't how anger management is truly treated. Actually the opposite, you'd be training yourself to cause violence when you feel angry or if not, then upset, no matter if you're in a safe space to start swinging or not. There are several of other unhealthy coping methods that are founded in an idea of catharsis.

It's even a all too typical strategy that cults use to manipulate their members. Expression of feelings is regimented, but melodramatic or whatnot unorthodox. Members are told to bottle up their feelings until the right time to channel them, and that is more often than not directed to channel that towards a purpose that decrases the ability for themselves or for others to think independently.

Stoicism also is a significant forbearer to modern psychotherapy.

You see a lot from the discourse about "trauma" and more so "generational trauma". I don't think it's an unknown thing at all. These people are obsessed with the the concept of hurtful moments defining their whole identity and with symbols being more of vital than actual material actions or deprivations. All things from generational trauma from their ancestors being raped 500 years ago to believing in astrology reeks of psychoanalysis.

Karl Marx screwed mightily with the Greeks and Romans (he wrote in Latin), so I think he might have had at least respect for Marcus Aurelius even if Marx wasn't a "stoic." himself

The early left and Marxists furthermore really valued ideals like discipline, self-control, temperance,and what have you (which are all values that we desperately are in need of currently. We can't rely on the majority of the American left, left leaners and some Liberal 2.0 leaning leftists who are more appropriately described as consumers to being acting like citizens) and eschewed the whole "burn it all down"mindset of the modern left or actually the Liberal 2.0.

As for the reason that the modern liberal 2.0 and some rarer leftist aren't fans of stoicism, I think it's only a natural reaction of the idea that it's simply and sanctifying for minorities or for historically oppressed groups to have such very public fits of rage or grief and that it's white supremacy and so on to value self-control and discipline. 

The modern liberal 2.0 and some rarer leftists encourage public displays of victim status and furthermore teaches that being a victim means that the violence that you do or the other outbursts you do

It’s only some outgrowth of idpol and it’s morphing into wokeness in our current era, can be seen as an adaptation.. Many of the most successful communist countries promoted those “conservative” values and being rough and rugged and all that, that approach might pull people left here and can be justified each time or if that is not the case, then just explained away.

So many people are pushed rightward because they subscribe to the notions of self improvement and mastery over one self and they view leftists (actually radlibs) as a collection of whiny emotionally unregulated babes who will not take any responsibility for their actions. Justifiably if you ask me

So this is the heart of the incompatibility that exists between wokeism and Stoicism. Woke narratives are often proponents of, or seeped in, self-victimhood, while Stoics treat self-victimhood as unhelpful and self-defeating in the end.

So much of the sort of stoic attitude that’s very in on the right only creates the opposite problem if you think about it. It teaches people to be accepting of their lot in life and to take it on the chin with dignity.

It ends up being used as a hammer so to speak by the ruling class to nail people back in line. 

This sort of thing I actually think is something where we have to strive for some balance. Extreme victimhood is equally as bad as extreme stoicism that commonly quells righteous indignation 

How do we define such a thing? Seeking out justice was constantly promoted by Stoics, and so battling for logic. Both Marcus Aurelius and Seneca sought a Stoic warrior due to this. 

If by "righteous indignation" we mean striving for revenge without any notion of justice or talking over loudly without any reason then it is irrational. Stoicism gives answer, it does not say what we ought to do. And also keep in mind, will pass away yesterday or a day after, so stuff out of the control of humans should not be an excuse for anger. Without not keeping in mind the death Marcus Aurelius would not be the Marcus Aurelius if he did not shield his army with bravery.  This is the length that someone like Jordan Peterson takes this. But I see such lengths that it is taken to as a bastardization of that philosophy. 

But, the proletariat are victimized, and to abolish capital would nearly require a type of revolution not different from the October revolution, or the Cuban revolution, etc.

Of course the idea of micro aggressions and victim mentality, the bleeding heart liberal 2.0 stuff (not bleeding heart libertarian stuff. I am part bleeding heart libertarian after all) thing, is only performative wokeness.

The modern liberal 2.0 and some liberal 2.0 sympathizing leftists' goal pertains to destruction and not to construction. Once we realize that, the blanks sort of fill in all by themselves.

Being even-keeled is a massive advantage in this kick in the head type of a world where all people want to do is to get a rise out of other people.

Masculinity and discipline are the opposite of hippie hedonism. They speak of responsibility and duty. They are not about free love.

The Liberal 2.0ers and their allies should admire Marcus, the very image of stoicism. Let's see all of the Liberal 2.0 purity tests he passes:

Pagan/non-Christian?  Yes. Writer? Yes Didn’t want lone power? Yes Family man? Yes 

Likely also fiddled kids in the same way the Greeks did too

But Marcus was a patriarch who was in charge of an empire. This is the thing- it’s too near to everything the Liberal 2.0 crowd are said to hate- but privately wish they were. 

Yet he writes down the secrets to his success, the guidebook to that success as being against the lifestyle of the liberal 2.0 and the few leftists who lean liberal 2.0 who oppose masculinity (which is commendable obviously) and for whining and throwing tantrums of emotion instead of stoically considering their emotions and emotional reactions through logic and fundamental reasoning.

“When the revolution comes I’ll be a lesbian dance therapy instructor,” proclaims future steelworker Ted Xe/Xim, who has no idea of duty, restraint, and is not able to fathom how such failures have led him to where he can oppose capitalism, but not because of capitalism's lack of morals but because these types of people are poor because of their lack of duty.

Aurelius had no interest in the military, for instance, but he learned soldiering fine- because it was what was needed from him

Progressives also more likely than not hate it because of its ‘return to tradition’ is too close to the right wing for their taste. They perceive themselves as the only people who can invent or come up with new things. “Leave the backward ways of thinking and the navel gazing to the conservatives. This is the way we pigeonhole them.”

who advocate against masculinity and for crying/tantrums of emotion

Which leftist/liberal was against masculinity? Was it Karl Marx? Vladimir Lenin?

But why am I complaining about people having a lack of duty since I am a Marxist? So I might have pushed it a bit

At the end of the day, people are not poor due to them lacking a sense of duty, that’s a very retarded take. Their material conditions are owing to the nature of capitalism.

When I say the leftists who lean Liberal 2.0 or are allies of the Liberal 2.0 or who sympathize with them above, I am speaking about the Liberal Progressives- who are canonically the Left in the view of the MSM and talking points.

I certainly am not speaking about the class-first marxists, who at this point in time are so marginalized they are hardly in the discussion or even talked about. 

They just get hit with the "class reductionists" tag and sidelined at the DSA or disrespected by woke morons, and they sure as hell don't have a seat at the Democrats table other than maybe a quick thank you and campaigning VP to grace a steel mill with their presence with a co-opted union for a fine and dandy photo-op before said VP troll flies back to the ELITIST BOURGEOIS coast as quick as the engines on their gas guzzler polluting flying rich mobile jets can burn so they can sign their stupid name to another Free Trade Agreement to undercut our wages and to ship our jobs out as well.

There's an obvious correlation between inherently ascetic values, and the platform of conservatism, i.e "no sex before marriage" evangelicals in the US, and Confucianism in China. While the Liberal 2.0 and their rarer left allies have long had themselves a Dionysian association -- protesting in opposition to racial injustice and the Vietnam war,  came packaged with the "Summer of Love."

I don't believes it's necessarily a rationally needed connection, it's only that any actually existing culturally-enforced ascetic values are, in the same vein of traditionalist and abstemious. Youngsters will constantly rebel as heavily against such repressive social norms as they do against the injustices they come to see in the society that they were born into.

Mao Zedong himself promoted “backwards” stuff like “traditional Chinese medicine”, which was basically his own invention, and it’s utter hogwash. Or he did that as a scam to hide he fact that communist China was too poor at the time to afford actual medicine or to cope with his country's less than stellar medical health industry

This may be an exaggeration. Maybe most of the development of Traditional Chinese Medicine happened in the past century and was done by the Japanese, inside of Japan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampo#Era_of_Western_influence

This wiki article does say the Japanese took it and developed it in their own image

Mao Zedong did promote “traditional Chinese medicine”. in many ways that he was seen as a revisionist.

Western leftism is entropic which is why the Liberal 2.0ers and a portion of the left don't embrace Stoicism . In a specific sense though, conservatism is actually entropic in the real scientific sense of the word -- like with the reckless abandon that the Republican party embraces in the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

But of course, younger people having so much yucky sex and that is the ever present threat here, bound to lead to cultural disintegration and to become our destined downfall. /s.   To cons: People nowadays have way less horizontal polka than our ancestors did and studies have proven this.

US Conservatism is at the end of the day liberalism, which is atomizing and entropic.

That's what is so funny about conservatives, that for every attempt the Liberal 2.0 and a few left wingers try to paint them as these authority worshipers, in actuality, it is that they're basically as obsessed with individualism as the American left. Both sides are this incoherent mess of right wing authoritarian and libertarianism however, what both sides care about more than anything is doing whatever they themselves desire

The type of collectivization that I support, a camouflaged or even regular command economy, that also is order. We always are seeing Americans worshiping the hollow words such as freedom and liberty, but what they are actually meaning is anarkiddie anarchy. The diefication of thyself if you will.

But nowadays Conservatives are far more likely to be obsessed with individualism than Liberal 2.0ers are to obsesssed with it. Conservatives mind numbingly stupidly think that Liberal 2.0ers are commies (I feel retarded even typing that)

If you go to the subreddit r/Stoic you will come across some left-leaning users on that subreddit. But it might just be because that is reddit and the majority of people on that type of social media internet are cyborgs or terminally online people who are so terminally online they are basically de facto robots.

Acceptance of conditions as they exist is a major theme in Stoicism. Stoicism has a perception of a cosmic order/reason (logos) that a person should behave in conformity with, instead of rebelling against by bemoaning their lot in life. 

It deifies Nature, and is consistent to a worldview that perceives human nature as immutable and the history of humans as cyclical. 

Yet, Stoicism has a history that goes far back, and is not homogeneous. Zeno of Citium and Marcus Aurelius were many centuries apart. It is not hard to find ideas in Stoicism that complement radical politics, and that is no different than finding ideas that complement radical politics in Christianity. 

Fortitude and stoicism (lowercase) are needed virtues for a political radical. The logos of Stoicism maybe could be identified with the spirit of Hegelian/Marxist history, but who really has any idea. 

Baruch Spinoza was a Stoic disciple and his writings were early bourgeois radically political and he is strongly popular among more than a few Marxists, following Antonio Negri (the guy who was known for of Empire and Red Brigades), Gilles Deleuze, Pierre Macherey to name a few. 

It's really not been like this before recently. Communists have glorified suffering for the cause of the greater good. The quintessential labor union leader was certainly not some person who was fragile and hedonistic. It's so a product of the cultural political landscape of the 1960's actually.

Not every stoic is a conservative. Here is the writer of _How to Be a Stoic_ ranting against MAGA: https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/the-key-is-activism-not-persuasion/

Personally, I feel the liberal 2.0 and some leftists don't care for Stoicism because stoicism doesn’t promote every and any human indulgence, and we got clearly burned through every single ‘maybe this actually isn’t a thing we should promote to everyone ’ barrier society has ever achieved. 

I’m not implying some, any, or really most societal tendencies are needed, or even rationale or justified, but like with a car going 240 mph, that doesn’t mean it has to aspire to hit that fast speed each time we start it. 

We have begun questioning the inherent fabric of a society just due to a couple of the things we held as the truth which don’t completely and in and of themselves hold up under closer inspection, so its natural numerous people feel that the entire foundation that has us here requires there to be a full and utter lie if anything we’ve been taught might not be true. 

I want to see studies on this subject, I think this is what’s caused us to come to a total unraveling of society, cultural life, gender identity, our political landscape, med, news, truths, polite talk, etc; as in if we are seeking out a reason as to why we are where we are at present, I posit the idea that this is why.

All of the worst of the worst alt-right chuds have appeared to embrace and/or appropriated ideas of stoicism. It also doesn’t seem good that a certain extreme tyrant from the early mid 20th century (whose initials are A.H) had a hard on for the classics.

Mark Zuckerberg’s sis even wrote a book on this subject, who herself holds a top notch degree in classics studies from the University of Princeton. Such is a shame, since the crux of her book is that writings from the classical period are a guidebook for western white supremacy and sexism. 

A Ph.D in basket crafting could have written that book. So there’s the answer why the Liberal 2.0ers and even the left don't care for Stoicism at all and actually find it generally troubling, this is an idea being nudged where the woke pretzels are created

This complete notion of putting philosophy, music, art, lit into a box out of a whole of two boxes in our political binary is beyond dumb. People care for what speaks to them, it cannot go any further then that, someone liking stoicism (sort of like me) and identifying as a leftist (like me) or lean leftist is a solid example. This is really true when we consider that the majority of the online right wing refer to themselves as stoics while they have never truly picked up and read anything on that subject, they only watch a 9:35 minute YouTube video or Dailymotion video on stoicism and then see some stoic quotes on a meme instead. 

Liberals are high on Buddhism and mindfulness, and there's a bunch of the same material to work with in that respect that they can use to justify political inaction, coming to terms with the status quo, and taking 100 percent responsibility for their feelings.

Lost of theories being tossed here but the easiest and most compelling is that it's basic mood affiliation. Stoicism is in its moment in the Sun so to speak among the Silicon Valley techdudes; and thus, it is dude-ey and so bad.

The content of this philosophy is in whole secondary. Now I think that the methods that stoicism has been adopted by those tech-dude demographic shows some glaring similarities to the previous favorited "philosophy" of that demographic, like for instance lolbertarianism and (as a Marxist it pains me to type this) Objectivism. Ya know -- that all encompassing "self-reliant stoic guy stands up right, jumps from tinted gray cliffs onto freezing water, toned bod, rigid sturdy railroads, tough as nails high buildings, yata yata yata, NO don't need anyone, certainly not any bitches or commies, tax cuts pls". /s

Stoicism is all about self-control and one being in control of their emotions which is directly in contrast to what woke people call for

But it’s so close to gas lighting to ask of someone who has been a victim, abused, discriminated against, etc. to attempt to be civil.

I’m not talking speaking about trans people, or poc grievance politics either. I’m talking of the working class getting exploited. How are we going to overthrow capitalism by politely asking like a stoic? 

I can just see it now, all of the bourgeois people all high and mighty saying: "oh those pesky revolutionaries, they are an uncivilized bunch!

Or I might be confusing "being in control of ones emotions" with "being polite." They're not in the same boat. One can be mad without them screeching like a baby, a person can speak up passionately without them throwing a temper tantrum.

Globally, not that much love by the left, lean leftists of Stoicism. There are pockets of exceptions to this rule like with South American socialists such as Evo Morales and the early Daniel Ortega, in some way Fidel Castro and the entire Cuban experience being said to be Stoic.

South American leftists who goad and go against and in the arms of the US establishment are not stoic but actually ego driven, and they seem to lose the story along with their lives

The self help books about stoicism make it seem like Jordan Paterson but for the people who have classical statues as their pfp. 

It merely feels like conservative ideas in a fancy wrapping, that one must conform, change to fit in with social standards and to blame themself for their failures.

I don't want to care to defend the wokies on this topic and now I have to wonder how is stoicism not actually existing conservatism? How does it have any use for socialism?

Nowadays Liberal left = feminine and right = masculine. A person who is emotional is viewed as feminine so not being emotional is to some people "toxic masculinity" and a bad thing

Stoicism has value only in the face of adversity and in suffering and liberal 2.0ers and leftists want to eliminate such things so it's not a major surprise that it's not all that adhered to on the liberal 2.0 side or even the left. 

However one can argue that right wingers actively desire for people to continue to suffer so that virtues such as this won't die out.

The right referring to itself as stoic is like Steven Segal referring to himself as the best martial arts actor. Neolibs and reds do be hating stoicism however.

I hate the that the philosophy of stoicism has been hijacked by the libertarians 

Accepting things one can’t change is not some excuse for justifying dumb capitalism.

Besides, Capitalism is something we can most definitely change.

Historically the left or relative left i.e liberals have been more and more inclined towards Epicureanism and Stoicism was for all intents and purposes associated with the conservative Optimate sect in Rome. But there too is lots of overlap between these two ideologies and there has also been an influence from stoicism too

Stoicism is a European / male and thus in the most vulgar idpol vantage point , each interest in it screams "Eurocentrism", "white supremacy culture", "toxic masculinity" etc , most certainly in comparison with other similar Eastern traditions such as Taoism or Buddhism. 

The BuzzFeed article headlines on stoicism write themselves: "Stoicism is just Buddhism for racists" which is a stupid take. On a related note the fact that stoicism has in any way ended up being associated with the right wing thought means it basically enters into the culture war as this binary good or bad thing depending on your side of the isle. Similar to how Yoga can be (unfairly) viewed as a left wing or at least liberal 2.0 wokey practice

Furthermore, Stoicism teaches people to build a coherent moral philosophy (at least on someone's own terms). So essentially it's similar to a "live true to yourself or at minimum acknowledge times that you are not and seek out why" kind of outlook. 

This in itself runs contrary to post-modernity, moral relativism and nihilism (which are seeped in nominally left wing spaces, I myself do adhere to aspects of Black Nihilism though) where each fight versus the notion of truly caring about or pursuing moral order. It doesn't go against "liberationism" (racial, sexual and so on), which is very much morally structured, but then go back to point number 1. To an Intersectionalist it is of course "white male".

Then there's the fact Stoicism engenders a person not to enter into the practice of self-pity, self-victimization and to not concern themselves about things which they (presently) lack the influence to have control over. Which numerous naive readers seem to think means "do nothing about anything ever" which is nuts, it's rather that people should correctly put in their time and resources into such things which they do got control over and the things that will make them live more harmoniously with their personal ethic / morality.

There's not one thing about that that is intrinsically opposed to liberal 2.0 or left wing causes though there are a high number of very privileged persons, nominally liberal 2.0 and to a much lesser extent left wing, who more than somewhat merely want an outlet to whinge and weep about themselves without any sort of obligation to alter their situation they are sulking about

Frankly Stoicism is of utility to people who see themselves in a society or scenerio that makes them feel sick / uneasy yet that don't know why. It drives people to self-interrogate and to come to a conclusionto why they feel the way they do about things. 

To view their emotional responses as portions of information to parse and not as the ends in and of themselves. That's very useful to assist someone like me with an anti-consumerist worldview cope in our mass media, consume more products, fast food I'm loving it, stream mur videos time period

Liberalism 2.0 and in some ways some sects of Leftism has teleology as a core value and the ideal of an attainable utopia. A lot of “how to live the best type of life” theories from classical philosophy in EuroAsian cultures are built around the values of acceptance of political and natural status quo. Not every one, obviously, but such is a big theme.

A big chunk of classical liberalism or conservatism is a nice fit with that. Revolutionaries must believe in a radically different material system that will change everything, including somehow someway  becoming victorious over cosmic issues by tying those cosmic issues to something material.

This is weird because some people on the liberal 2.0 side and a few also on the left are turning to Neoplatonism, which ironically is influenced by Stoic ethics.

Stoicism is born of a response to the perceived impossibility of the political qua collective social action

Stoicism is not a fit with Liberal 2.0ers or even some leftists since without people being reliant on them they got no real power.

The kind of person who suddenly "gets into stoicism" is gonna say some of the nuttiest, cringiest b.s we can fathom.  And that's not the stoicism's fault, it's the fault of any quasi-Jordan Peterson b.s that is being trafficked to these lasped dude bros straight into Epictetus.

Stoicism is not something most of the people can or have to attain, it only creates emotionally immature men and other sorts of social rejects. Whatever the original intention of stoics was it has morphed into something that is bastardized and incompatible with modern society 

Liberal 2.0s don't like that Stoicism is built upon coping with a sad reality, rather than trying to reshape it. It works fine for those people for whom the system is helping, as ultimately there is stuff that even a gazillionaire or Roman Emperor cannot fight. But for those who sit at the bottom, beneath the extant systems, it does not one thing other than it engendering a coping passivity.

Rightoids are "Stoics" as much as Liberal 2.0ers are "socialist". It barely means a damn thing and is mostly only some tribal signifier with some cargo-cultist behavior. Tons of rightoids embrace stoicism and don't even have any clue what the f*ck that entails. Then, liberals and lefties despise it due to that association.

Neither of these sides even gets what it really means, like most terms those sides quibble over.

People also confuse philosophy with politics, and at times they actually are orthogonal.