The Oxford Comma Is Pointless

I hate the Oxford Comma.

I hate the way it looks. I hate the way proponents of it get all high and mighty.

But most of all - I hate that it... 

1. Doesn't fix the problem it's meant to fix
2. Contradicts the logic of commas and "and"
3. Creates new problems
4. Other punctuation changes fix the problem better
5. Frames ambiguity and contextualisation as a problem, when it simply is not
6. Claims to be necessary, when many other languages are fine without it

So, lets go claim by claim.

Doesn't fix the problem it's meant to fix

(image found here:The 'Oxford' Comma: Why That Dumb JFK/Stalin Meme Gets It Wrong)

We invited two strippers, JFK and Stalin.  

We invited two strippers, JFK, and Stalin.

So this "problem" occurs because the following pattern:

"Blah blah blah [plural noun] [pause] [noun 1] and [noun 2]."

... or more generally...

 "Blah blah blah [plural noun] [pause] [list]."

... are common ways to introduce new things. Thus, yes, there is an ambiguity present with "We invited two strippers, JFK and Stalin." as to whether it is four entities, or two that are specified. The Oxford Comma nominally fixes that...

However, let's extend that example.

We invited three strippers, JFK, Churchill and Stalin.

We invited three strippers, JFK, Churchill, and Stalin.

By the same logic, now BOTH examples are ambiguous. 

Both can be read to follow the pattern:

"Blah blah blah [plural noun] [pause] [list]."

Thus the problem is not solves, it is merely delayed by one list entry.

 Contradicts the logic of commas and "and"

And is used in a variety of ways. When used after a full stop or comma, it introduces the next clause conjunctively. But when used between nouns it causes both of those nouns to form a list (occupying the same place in the grammar).

In addition, as the article already linked once (The 'Oxford' Comma: Why That Dumb JFK/Stalin Meme Gets It Wrong) - the comma in lists exists as a way to omit "and"-s, which are also omitted in speech.

“Cinnamon and Krystal and JFK and Stalin”

“Cinnamon, Krystal, JFK, Stalin”

The first example here is technically a valid sentence, and you will often see children structure lists this way. However, it is unidiomatic - thus not the way adults actually speak.

The second is only valid in very formal contexts such as databases, code and some dictionaries - where the separation between listed items must be consistent. In such instances ; is sometimes also used.

But in regular speech “Cinnamon and Krystal and JFK and Stalin” gets shortened to “Cinnamon [beat] Krystal [beat] JFK and Stalin” - the comma is a common way to represent a short pause. The "and" usually gets said during the beat that would be between "JFK" and "Stalin". Additionally if you say the following out-loud at a normal cadence:

1. “Cinnamon, Krystal, JFK and Stalin” /  “Cinnamon, Krystal, JFK, and Stalin”
2. "JFK and Stalin"

The parts of the list "JFK and Stalin" sound the same.

Adding an extra comma here would disrupt this. Like the article above says, it would be like "and and" - but it would also add a beat. Sometimes we do add a beat, but that is often for effect.

“Cinnamon [beat] Krystal [beat] JFK [beat] and Stalin”

This feels like emphatically stating that the final entry in the list is Stalin.

Creates new problems

Okay so my turn to turn this onto Oxford Comma Lovers:

I had eggs, dear Watson, and orange juice.

Did... I just eat Watson?

This ambiguity arises because the use of comma brackets (that is to say commas used to bracket something, usually an interjection) become indistinguishable from lists in this scenario. In addition, it is common to put said interjections between the second-to-last and last items in a list.

There is also:

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God.

 Where the same issue as the strippers example occurs in microcosm - a single noun being followed by comma brackets indicating a specification of that noun.

This is an ambiguity that simply doesn't arise if you assume lists not to have Oxford Commas.

Other punctuation changes fix the problem better

If we are already demanding punctuation changes to make intended meaning clearer... why not consider other options.

With the 

"Blah blah blah [plural noun] [pause] [noun 1] and [noun 2]."

 "Blah blah blah [plural noun] [pause] [list]."

Structure - the comma isn't the only punctuation that fits. The dash, colon and brackets can also work here.

"Blah blah blah [plural noun] - [noun 1] and [noun 2]."

 "Blah blah blah [plural noun]: [list]."

"Blah blah blah [plural noun] ([list])."

This has the added advantage of actually fixing the problem for lists of any length.

We invited two strippers - JFK and Stalin.  

We invited two strippers: JFK and Stalin. 

We invited two strippers (JFK and Stalin).

We invited three strippers - JFK, Churchill and Stalin.

We invited three strippers: JFK, Churchill and Stalin.

Frames ambiguity and contextualisation as a problem, when it simply is not

We contextualise language use all the time. Natural languages are messy and ambiguous. Trying to pin them down and make them super-duper logical is impossible.

This is a fake problem.

Claims to be necessary, when many other languages are fine without it

I feel like I have never seen it in Welsh (in which I am fluent). It probably has been used due to English influence. Here is a Reddit thread discussing it which validates my feelings: Oxford comma yn yr Gymraeg? : r/learnwelsh

Russian does not: orthography - What languages use the serial comma? - Linguistics Stack Exchange, пунктуация - Differences in punctuation marks between Russian and English - Russian Language Stack Exchange

French does not: Comparing French and English Styles and Punctuation Patterns: Parallel, Successive Items in a Series

Finnish does not: Punctuation [Handbook of Finnish, 2nd edition]

This is despite said languages doing lists in a very similar way to English.

Please let that be the final nail in the coffin as to it's necessity.

Conclusion

If you want to use it that's fine. If you like the way it looks and feels - sure.

But the high horse that Oxford Comma users sit upon is not justified. It is superfluous. It does not fix the problem it intends to fix, there are better fixes anyway, it creates more problems and the "problem" it "fixes" was never an actual problem in the first place.