It is true that we should strive to be informed and compassionate towards all pressing issues, but the retort posted does not take into account the entirety of Nikhil's original essay. While the retort was correct in saying that we must acknowledge our desensitization to mass shootings and reflect on whether we should make ourselves care more about them, it neglected to acknowledge the main point of Nikhil's essay. That is that we should make explicit the consideration of what is and is not worthy of our outrage, as our gut is notoriously unreliable as an analysis machine.
Nikhil's essay explored the way that different world issues may require different levels of attention and action - ranging from not caring to caring enough to make a tangible difference. The retort did not address this key point and instead opted to focus on one particular issue, global warming. Global warming is certainly an issue that requires attention, but Nikhil's essay was about understanding the range of issues worthy of our outrage and exercising thoughtful consideration when it comes to deciding which ones deserve more attention.
That said, it is still important to be intentional and conscious about the issues we consider to be worthy of our outrage. However, it is also important to understand the distinction between a gut reaction and an informed decision. Unfortunately, the retort did not acknowledge this distinction. Instead, it simply reiterated what Nikhil had already said - that we should strive to be informed and compassionate towards all pressing issues. UrRong - We must consider our emotions when deciding what issues deserve our attention, but should not rely solely on our gut for guidance. Instead, accurate understanding should come first in making decisions about where to direct our outrage. And if all else fails, sometimes a good dose of humor can help us get through it all!