Focusing on what you can change and changing it is not at all the same thing as accepting your fate. You are misconstruing and mischaracterizing stoicism. Stoicism is the exact opposite of passivity.

recommends accepting things that "outside of your control" and being "indifferent" to the external world asserting the falsehood that there's no difference between being rich or poor but it's all to do with a mindset. Second stoicism leads to passivity instead of forward thinking revolution such as women's rights and freedom from colonialism or slavery. A stoic would just have "accepted fate" and tried not to fight against it but focused on what they "can control" like being a good slave or being a good secretary, this comes after reading many chapters of bullshit in a book titled "the little book of stoicism" I wish I could link the screenshot pages to make my argument more clear but I don't know how to do so. — Gitonga

Stoicism doesn't say there is no difference between being rich and being poor. It teaches that you shouldn't let the fact that other people are rich disturb you to the point where your reason is incapacitated.

Also, Stoicism maintains that we each are obligated to live according to nature, which to the ancient Stoics was to use our reason to live a virtuous life. It's a part of reason, or virtue, to act for the good of others--which would be to do things within our control--because we each share in the immanent divinity of the universe. Also, the ancient Stoics promoted the ideas of the "brotherhood of man" and the natural equality of human beings, because we all carry within us a part of the divine.

1. Boring language

"If it makes you happy, it can't be that ba-a-a-ad." (Sheryl Crow!)

2. Wimpish, bizarre language

"Stoicism can not contain itself. Stoics misinterpret feelings and human nature and set unnatural limits to other people. They prioritize their -ism over being interested in the well-being of themselves and others." (Nietzsche?)

3. Full of himself-language

"Marcus Aurelius is mad!" (Commodus?)

4. Surrealistic language

"'You are old, Father William,' the young man said,/'And your hair has become very white;/And yet you incessantly stand on your head—/Do you think, at your age, it is right?'//'In my youth,' Father William replied to his son,/'I feared it might injure the brain;/But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,/Why, I do it again and again.'" (Lewis Carroll)

no offense mate but this is not what stoicism is about at all it doesn't even say anything, this is a quite fallacious representation,
other people have probably already educated you on it now.
I understand your mindset, but it might have been based on false assumptions, so take that into consideration

"Stoicism can not contain itself. Stoics misinterpret feelings and human nature and set unnatural limits to other people. They prioritize their -ism over being interested in the well-being of themselves and others." (Nietzsche?) — mortenwittgenstein

I never could understand why Frantic Freddie Nietzsche was so upset with the Stoics, but he was the sort to get upset whenever and wherever he could. Perhaps he understood that his amor fati and concept of eternal recurrence were for the most part accepted by the Stoics, and was angry for that reason. He loved to think of himself as an original.

A stoic would just have "accepted fate" and tried not to fight against it but focused on what they "can control" like being a good slave or being a good secretary, — Gitonga

A stoic slave would indeed have very little control over their life. They would have control of their virtue, however. If a stoic slave were ordered to do something that they considered to be unvirtuous, and there was a price to pay if they didn't perform the unvirtuous act, what they did would show how much of a stoic they were. Is it shameful to be a poor stoic? No, because it's not about social status, it's about attaining eudaimonia. Selfishness doesn't lead to eudaimonia. On the other hand, dying because you refused to follow an order doesn't lead to eudaimonia, either.

What do you believe in? I see you trashing so many things. Do you feel hatred?

There are some things in your control, including "parts" of your external environment, whether in your immediacy or within reach. For the parts that are not under your influence, Stoicism teaches not to stress yourself out due to them. This is quite a difference from what you're implying.

You know that famous prayer asking for the “serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference”?

Stoicism emphasizes the first and last points (having the wisdom to know whether or not you can change something, and the serenity to accept when you cannot), but it never denies the middle part, the courage to change the things you can.

If anything, it is taking for granted a background of people always trying to change everything under the assumption that they can, and just advising to notice where you cannot, and accept that... so you can refocus your efforts on the things you can change, and so be all the more effective at those things.

Ditto most of the comments, but I'm also sympathetic to the OP. Stoicism can easily seem trite and a justification of oppression. It might be helpful to distinguish personal philosophy from social policy. Stoicism makes sense as personal philosophy, but it could be perverted and incorporated into social policy, persuading people that they cannot change the systems, class structures, wealth inequalities etc they live in so they may as well accept them and like it.