I think that's a mis-characterization of stoicism. That sounds more like Epicureanism (quit stressful things and live a simple life) or cynicism (quit everything and live like a stray dog so that you don't have to worry about losing anything).

Stoicism because popular with Roman elites specifically because it didn't ask the adherents to quit anything, but simply to adapt themselves to whatever adversity they might face[1].

[1] https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powe...

I think there are different flavors of Stoicism chiefly differentiated by the social status of the person practicing it. The wealthy and the powerful don’t have to deal with systemic oppression, only their own emotions and consequences of playing the game of realpolitik. In that context Stoicism has a lot to offer. For everyone else though - well sometimes raw, “unmanaged” anger for example is a useful emotion. A “stoic revolutionary” is an oxymoron.

Rage unfailingly makes you a pawn in someone else's game. You should always be wary of anyone telling you that you need to be angry.

The Stoics inherited the Cynics attitude that death isn't an evil. If worse comes to worst, you can always just fall on your sword. They used to say that the door is always open. Marcus Cato weaponized this fact to rob Julius Caesar of complete victory: Caesar couldn't demand his submission if he fell on his sword first. They found him and patched him up. But he ripped out the stitches and disemboweled himself with his bare hands.

I wouldn't be so harsh; it's better to have some way of handling things life throws at you, especially things you have little to no control over, than none at all.

I would rather say an ability to be "well-adjusted".