From the actual question as seen on r/Loricism:
"The truth of it is, when I started putting these ideas together I had not even discovered Stoicism, or at least recognized it. It was only very recently that I started to take notice of it, and what I realized is that a lot of my ideas lined up with it. I haven't studied it in depth, though, beyond listening to one book on Audible. I do admit, however, that I like to hang out in the Stoicism group on Facebook. So the short answer: if it rips of Stoicism exactly, that's a really huge f*cking coincidence, considering. And truth be told, it's either an indictment of Stoicism (that a mind as mediocre as mine could come up with the exact same thing independently), haha, or it's a pretty big compliment toward me. I think, clearly, the most rational answer is that, yeah, any similarities are just happy accidents.
Not trying to make a name for myself really, it doesn't appear anywhere on the website or in the PDF (nor here, for that matter). I do promote it from my own social media, but only because I have a decently sized audience. I simply want to share the ideas, not necessary take ownership of them. In fact - and I think this is cool - lots of people have said they had no idea I was even associated with it in an official capacity, they just thought I thought it was cool or worth sharing.
I think it might be more apparent if I put forth an example. And even in doing so, this particular example is intended only to illustrate that there are differences. Also, I never start from Stoicism and go "how can I be different?" I don't start from anywhere. I just ponder. One example that sticks out in my mind is how people respond to emotion. If I'm not mistaken, Stoicism doesn't like demonstrations of anger, jealousy, etc. They're not trying to saying you have to be emotionless, but they're saying you should work to control what you can control. At least this is my understanding of the subject, I vaguely recall some of the Stoic writers mentioning things like joy and pleasure as well. They wanted people to experience a happy life. And of course, I could be completely wrong about it. You can see my understanding of Stoicism is very limited. So I don't start from a Stoic concept and make changes. I start from myself. The way Loricism views emotions is with temperance. In other words, we all have emotions, we're human. And it's not out of line to let them show, we just don't want them to control our actions without our consent. We don't try to suppress them or become emotionless (and to be fair, I don't think the Stoics are like this either, it's probably a misconception). With temperance, we can allow each emotion to happen, not be judgmental about it, and attempt to handle how we respond to them insomuch as we are able. In other words, we don't let them control us, but we don't try to suppress them. I use the firefighter analogy to illustrate this. A fire can easily get out of control, especially if we're unaccustomed to using fire. An inexperienced person won't be as adept at handling fire as someone who has spent a lifetime understanding it. Yet a firefighter doesn't only put out fires. They are also able to do controlled burns. They are also able to use fire (as we all are) for beneficial things like cooking, or keeping us warm while camping, etc. Which person has the greater mastery over fire, the person who avoids fire and puts it out at the first sight of smoke? Or the person who can wield it and control it in all its incarnations? Loricism advises to be like the firefighter with regards to emotions. I believe this differs from the Stoic approach, though I can't be certain, because I didn't look there before I fleshed it out. "