My reasoning is based on the attitude towards emotional self-regulation. Stoicism is rooted in the desirability and moral value of emotional self-regulation, and this puts it in odds with woke because woke is partly about legitimacy of making my emotions your problem to manage.
Cf discourse around "emotional labor" -- who does the work of emotional self-regulation, and who gets to enjoy emotional free expression is not a neutral thing and an expression of power gradients etc etc. Stoicism can be used as a moral stance to beat up on "snowflakes"
Ie, the very fact of emotional self-regulation in a stoic mode implies access to a free choice between regulating and not regulating that's revealing of privilege. "The waiter must smile, the diner can be rude" basically.
I've always thought "you can't control what happens, but you can control how you respond" to be uncontroversially true and available to anyone, but I guess that is debated in woke circles? If you can't sleep or eat well, it does become harder.
that's not disputed. the problem is telling someone else what they can or can't control, esp coming from a place of privilege. stoicism sounds a lot like "just accept your lot" which is good advice in many cases, but reinforces the status quo as a normative theory for living
I have considered that, but is that in fact how it is practiced by most people? My understanding is that the whole point is how you handle yourself, not how you expect other people to handle themselves.
The idea that your choices and mine are separable prima facie before moral/ethical considerations are entertained is a basic weakness in all conservative philosophies (and stoicism is one). It implicitly assumes the legitimacy of the status quo so long as you personally can cope
Basically under sufficient privilege a stoic posture is either naïveté or hypocrisy. If my adversity is trivial, handling it with stoic grace says nothing about whether I’m more moral/stronger etc than someone throwing screaming tantrums under far greater stressors.