Why do you get the feeling that the author doesn't like these people, or that it is scorn? You are reading into an observational piece more than it seems to act

Why do you get the feeling that the author doesn't like these people, or that it is scorn? You are reading into an observational piece more than it seems to actually convey. 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.