Resilience is great - but, arguably, it just a part of an even greater value of Stoicism, namely that it can greatly improve our relations with other people. Stoicism can teach us not to be possessive, envious, vindictive - and, of course, plain aggressive. It is possible to imagine a highly resilient person who still has issues with aggression or arrogance - but it is difficult to imagine a person with healthy social relations who is not also highly resilient.
This article claims that a Stoic has no reason to get depressed by bad political conditions since an evil government is not really a bad thing for a Stoic - since nothing can be bad for a Stoic except his own bad choices. Even so, the article claims, a Stoic acknowledges that an evil government is capable of doing "terrible things" to people. To make this line of thinking work we have to think of ourselves as Stoics who can't be harmed by an evil government - since nothing can be bad for us as Stoics except our own bad choices - and other people as non-Stoics who will suffer terribly if they are oppressed by the evil government. In my opinion, this interpretation of Stoicism is flat out wrong. First of all, an evil government is indeed a bad thing. The Stoics distinguish between internal good/bad things such as our own good or bad choices and external good/bad things such as other people's happiness or unhappiness: "some bad things are in the sou