Massimo Pigliucci recently came across Mary Beard and Emily Wilson, and got a burr in his saddle about both of them and their takes Stoicism and neo-Stoicism.
My thought?
Without linking, if you object to Stoicism being called “fascist” as anachronistic as well as a wrongful description, do you also object to Platonism, at least “The Republic,” being called that? On “The Republic,” it’s at least 50 percent right.
(Massimo does mach that objection, on "presentism" grounds. I've already stated my disagreement on that.)
==
As for fatalism? Well, of course it is. Any hardcore determinist philosophy is fatalistic in the denotative sense of the word. But, if you’re a determinist of sorts becoming more hardcore, you may not like that, and definitely may not like the hints of a connotative sense.
==
As for Marcus Aurelius the conquerer? Well, if you want to argue with Mary Beard on how bad he was, fire away. "Not as bad as Caesar" is a weak defense. On the other hand, DO fire away; it wouldn't be the first time Beard overstated such claims.
Marcus displaced populations of Germanic peoples after wars across the borders, and within the empire, signed off on, and by imperial rescript, instigated a moderate-sized, persecution of Christians in Lyon. Previous emperors would surely have done the same, and that link says that Marcus even admired their Stoic-like Stoicism. But, "doing no worse" rather than doing better? On the third hand, martyrdom in 170s CE Gaul may not have happened, or at a minimum, not been as severe as claimed, per Candida Moss. And, it's not just Moss. Many modern scholars consider the story of Blandina to be third-century, not late-second, and of dubious authenticity.
======
Wilson? Pigliucci's plaint against her starts with presentism, as she notes that Epictetus never became an abolitionist. Well, part of my plaint against Pigliucci, a decade and more ago, was with his plaint against presentism, a plaint that has grown slowly but steadily, like Elijah's cloud on the horizon.
He goes on to say a presentist stance against not condemning slavery in the past is not "useful." I take that as meaning ethically useful. Nice to see a virtue ethicist dipping their toes into utilitarianism.
==
The back-issue, of course, is Pigliucci's criticism (not critique) of presentism.
