Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I am speaking about the principles of stoicism as such, so whether someone is pure or not is beside the point. I don't care whether "modern so-called Stoics are purists", and it doesn't seem pertinent to your claims that it is convenient centrism.
It seems obvious to me that certain elements of consumerism do corrupt reason and the virtues, and are to be avoided on those grounds. Other elements of consumerism destroy the natural world and make human and other life, if one stretches the consequences out further, increasingly untenable. Hence, consumerism is also objectionable on those grounds. So I don't at all see how your position that "post-industrial Stoics" simply wish to normalize their predilections for consumer culture. I should also add that the concept of post-industry is weak and probably just disturbs the conversation.
I reject your concept that the human is anti-natural. Our thinking and creating way is precisely in our nature. The claim that people are not "natural" is the height of conceit. Our nature simply allows this extra dimension of culture. Within that, there are cultural forms we could take that are destructive and others that are healthy. The point of stoicism is to promote a healthy culture.
Now returning to the point on centrism: I think you have failed to make the point. There is no clear spectrum of two clear extremes of which stoicism is a centrist position at all. As in the political field, the use of the word "centrist" is simply a technique you use to position stoicism as being fundamentally unprincipled and contingent on convenience. While this strategy is likely rhetorically persuasive to some, you aren't really succeeding in showing how certain elements shouldn't be considered "morally indifferent". And when pressed, you reply that stoics aren't sufficiently pure, or that humans are unnatural, or that their belief system crumbles if nature is illogical. But all of these are besides the point, and you aren't demonstrating these claims.
On the last piece: Yes, we believe the nature is deeply logical but not in the shallow sense of the rationalists or in a way that even appears logical to humans. There is an element of faith here, similar to Hegel's philosophy. You may disagree with it, and speculate that if this kernel of faith were not true, stoicism would fail. And yet, you have proven nothing, and persuaded no one. And if you seek to believe that the world we live in is inherently monstrous, you only do a disservice to yourself.
