Conversation

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"
1
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.
1
3
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
1
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
Image
1
1
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.
1
Of course not! I think I see the divergence here. Yes, virtue ethics where virtue = bearing something stoically, means virtue is more available to some than others. I guess I just mentally filter that stuff out & try to take the good bits about understanding scope of action.
2