I have joked before how people really into stoicism tend to be quite emotional and even a risky, as stoicism always seems to be aspirational and doesnt describe the stoic fans behaviour (a good example is the yter Sargon), but this might be a bit of an extreme example.

[–] Volkditty@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I started reading Stoicism as an angry discontented man in my mid-20s. At the time it was very helpful and I still appreciate some of the philosophy but I stopped calling myself a Stoic when I saw how some online communities used it as a gateway to right-wing ideology.

One of the central tenets of Stoicism is that the only thing you can control is your own thoughts and actions. It's very easy to twist that into "the only thing that matters is your own thoughts and actions and no one can ever tell you you're wrong."

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Also, it easily morphs into the proposition that attempting to fight injustice or make the world a better place beyond improving one’s own lot (and ability to tune out annoyances beyond one’s control) is a fool’s errand, and can be a call to renounce responsibilities and retreat into an internal exile. Which is a useful ideology for the unfree, but antithetical to the propositions of democratic society.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Step one is understanding you only control your own thoughts and actions. Step two is learning how to control your anger and use it as fuel for deliberate actions.

Honestly, I think Luigi here just followed this wisdom. Recognised that he was rightfully angry at the system and directed that anger at someone responsible. You only control your actions, and your action can be to shoot a motherfucker on the street ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not condoning or saying it's morally acceptable, but I don't think it's philosophically incoherent.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)