I am making this thread so that we may bring forward common misconceptions on Stoicism, and give explanations on how they are incorrect. This can prove useful in that this thread may be referenced via online links, or the explanations within can provide others with the appropriate diction, phrasing, and explanations in the refutation of misinterpretations elsewhere.
I am not listing all of the misconceptions here myself, but rather asking that you, viewers and subscribers, bring them forward individually, whether it be asking or answering.
One of the largest misconceptions is that Stoicism teaches and advocates for submission and compliance. This is most certainly not the case. Acceptance, or emotional neutrality, is appropriate when one genuinely cannot have any impact on the event in question. Inaction is not appropriate when one may be able to affect a situation for the better, or when an unfortunate result has already occurred, and cannot be undone.
In the event of an undesirable/harmful/consequential occurrence, if there exists a course of action that can be taken to lessen the consequence, it may very well be an appropriate reaction. It is the hosting of one's own useless or debilitating emotions that is frowned upon. More often than not, emotions such as sadness or anger, and whims based on such (vengeance, lethargy, etc) are of no practical use, and only serve to worsen a situation, or one's own happiness and clarity of mind. Composure and clear reasoning are more beneficial to the person and the event than volatile emotion could ever hope to be.
Stoicism does not advocate inaction when one has potential control over a situation. It advocates acceptance, and control of one's own emotions, when the user does not have control. If anybody has any corrections for how I explained the error of this misconception, please feel free to present them to me.