After reading a lot of mainstream media article like this I'm starting to wonder whether stuff like this is entirely intentional. There is no intent to stimulate intellectual disclosure, just to evoke a reaction and get more clicks.
Regarding the meaning of Stoicism, I would argue that your definition is no closer than the one given in this flippant conversational piece article. Diogenes is one of the most famous Stoics and was known to live without almost anything: He was influential and capable, but intentionally eschewed almost everything, living in a drain pipe and drinking from his hands. He forced "suffering" upon himself, as in many of the examples given. Intentionally pursuing suffering, or creating need, is a principal element of virtually every interpretation of Stoicism, rather than some AAA-sort of acceptance of what you cannot change.
And I totally subscribe to that philosophy (the convenient subset of Stoicism, which much like Buddhism we tend to pick and choose from), as an aside. Our psychological unpinnings make existence suffering, in a sense, because it will always tune to the baseline being mediocre. Intermix suffering, however, and suddenly the ordinary becomes extraordinary. Being cold and uncomfortable makes sitting by a fire and drinking a hot drink magical. Periods of fasting can make a meal, any meal, the best, most enjoyable meal you've ever had. Etc.
Christianity on the other hand is all about virtue in suffering, perhaps best communicated by the anecdote of Christ having the opportunity to avoid suffering on the cross, but refusing that opportunity. (There is a great deal to be said about how Christianity finds virtue in suffering, enough to fill books, but this singular example is perhaps the most vivid, and maybe even the root of it.)
The confusion may arise because Christians have often voiced some tentative respect for Stoicism, but they in fact have very different approaches to suffering.
Your comment made me imagine a parody article where suddenly Christianity is really popular in SV and the author lambasts techies for their love of suffering, their cynical beliefs that all people are born sinners, their belief in an all-mighty-all-powerful lord to whom you must submit to be saved, etc etc. It'd be pretty funny.
The purpose was virtuous, and consequently so was resisting the temptation to abandon it because of the suffering, but suffering in and of itself is not virtuous.
As a ex-christian it seems distasteful for me to start quoting scripture, but I can if you demand it. There is ample scriptural evidence for Christians believing there is virtue in suffering, and ample historic evidence of Christians acting in accordance to this belief.
It's a pretty straight forward element of Christianity: Christ suffered, therefore you can bring yourself closer to him by doing the same.
Some Christians took it even further and sought out martyrdom to get closer to Christ or ensure themselves a place in heaven.
Even now, there are people (in Brazil, if I'm not mistaken) who crucify themselves for similar reasons.
Not exactly stoic.
Determining what you can and can't change is an (almost) impossible task on its own. The way you describe Stoicism can be used to persuade a person that their status is unchangeable and that it should be accepted as "part of Nature's plan".
What? No it's not. You can't change the weather, you can't bring the dead back to life, you can't force other people to think a certain way.
You can control your own thoughts and actions. These things seem very obvious to me. What is difficult about this?
Clearly it's not that obvious, because all of your examples are wrong in some sense. Weather can be changed, medically dead people are brought back to life and people can most certainly be manipulated.
On the other hand, some people can't control their own thoughts and actions.
With that said, is it perhaps possible that stoicism when properly understood might encourage people to find what they can change and how they can change it? And might it also, perhaps, be possible that any philosophy can be abused by bad actors? Some might contend that these two points taken together argue for education.
Wot? I have absolutely no problem doing that.
* Kevin Rose, Jack Dorsey and a couple of others are into this subculture. From there the author makes the sweeping claim that "Silicon Valley" loves it. Sampling bias, much?
* "Rank-and-file tech workers frequently have more than one Stoic text on their bookshelves." [Citation needed].
* "Stoics believed that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things that seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath. The philosophy is handy if you already believe that the rich are meant to be rich and the poor meant to be poor." Fuck no. Stoicism about personal responsibility, about changing what you can and accepting what you can't. Marcus Aurelius asks why you think the world should be fair, he doesn't claim that it is fair.
A newspaper that publishes BS like this degrades itself.