The Oxford comma is silly, unnecessary and immoral. You're wrong ...

Behind every great change is a great story.
First I'll demonstrate why mine is the correct point of view from every perspective that matters -- logically, in terms of clarity and even, in its way, morally.
And then I'm going to show you why the whole argument doesn't matter.
Buckle in. We're going to discuss the serial comma. Or, rather, the reasons I choose not to use it.
The situation at hand
First, if somehow you've missed this raging storm of controversy, what is the serial comma?
Also called the Oxford comma, it's the comma used before "and" in a series or list of three or more. For example: "I love eating, my cars, and Grandma."
The comma before "and Grandma" -- that's a serial comma. This is the ground upon which people who like to think of themselves as grammarians have staked their flag. They call themselves diehard defenders of the serial comma.
They're serious about it, too.
Just Google "serial comma defense." You'll be swamped with essays, articles and vigorous defenses of the Oxford comma.
Here's one.
Another:
This is a good one:
Funny, right?
But here's the thing with all these arguments: They're all based on spurious, and in some cases dishonest, reasoning.
Logic
The typical defense of the serial comma relies on the idea that not using it every time will inevitably lead readers to conclude that the author is inept. Or possibly insane.
Unless Nelson Mandela really was a collector of dildos, that final example is an unlikely situation to arise in real life. But it's standard practice for the pro-Oxford camp to build their arguments on such logically shaky ground.
For example, this statement from an online essay (titled, with typical pro-Oxford zealousness, "14 Reasons You Should Use The Oxford Comma: It's necessary, important, and life changing"): "Why would you only separate some things in a list while leaving others connected? I'm convinced that you're probably just lazy."
What a silly argument.
Why would you only separate some things in a list and not others? Because we know our readers are not brain-dead.
They know that "red, white and blue" is a list of three colors. They do not need a second comma to make this clear. (For that matter, following this senseless argument to its conclusion, shouldn't there be a comma after the final element in the series? And yet no one is arguing for that.)
We also know our readers will understand that the sentence "I had eggs, toast and orange juice" does not indicate that someone is telling toast and orange juice about the rest of breakfast. On what planet would someone read it that way?
In addition, we recognize that torturing logic to the point of breaking, as in that absurd yet often-presented example, does not help one's case.
Clarity
Most of these zealous pro-Oxford-comma arguments are built on the idea that the serial comma is required for clarity, and that style guides that suggest avoiding them will lead to floods of confusion.
This position is built on the assumption that non-Oxford comma styles insist on never using it.
This assumption, however, is false.
The fact is that every stylebook that eschews the serial comma -- including the Associated Press's -- indicates that if the comma is necessary for clarity the writer should use it.
Let me rephrase that to make it absolutely clear. The rule under these so-called anti-serial-comma style guides is this:
If a sentence is unclear without a serial comma, use it.
And, following the same logic: If a sentence is clear without a serial comma, do not use it.
Strangely, I never hear this point mentioned in discussions with pro-serial-comma zealots. Perhaps they simply don't know it. Or maybe they are too consumed with self-righteousness to pay attention to the rules they are attacking.
Strangely, I never hear this point mentioned in discussions with pro-serial-comma zealots.
All those examples like "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God"? Agreed! Those are perfect cases in which a serial comma should be used.
If a sentence is unclear without serial commas, use them! No one is stopping you.
(This, by the way, is the point of the "my parents" sentence pictured above, which is often presented out of context. It was made up by author Stephen Pinker to show an example of when serial commas should be used.)
Morality
This may be a perspective only I share, but I bristle at being told I have to use a punctuation mark even when it is unnecessary.
I find this position to be dogmatic, draconian and dismissive of the writer's art. It presumes that a rulebook is superior to sense. It presupposes that no reader or writer can be trusted to distinguish between a clearly understandable list and one that needs help to be understood.
These people's insistence on following a punctuation rule in every case, despite all logic, strikes me as the sort of position held by self-important martinets and bureaucrats -- not by people who care about clarity and communications.
This argument presumes that a rulebook is superior to sense.
I would argue, in fact, that this mindless insistence on the inflexible use of the serial comma is the sort of rigid, thoughtless activity that in fables led lemmings over the cliffs -- and in real life leads people to obey orders, no matter how unethical or immoral or offensive those orders may be.
Yes, I just compared Oxford-comma zealots to Nazis. Deal with it.
None of this matters
I promised that I'd discuss why all this discussion is pointless. Here we go.
The secret to correct use of a publication's style is to keep in mind an important point that is almost always overlooked in discussions by non-professionals.
Here it is: A style guide is nothing more -- or less! -- than a guide to a publication's style. It is designed to encourage clarity and good grammar, yes, but most of all it is designed to enforce consistency.
If one editor spells a word "color" and another spells it "colour," a reader might well think a publication to be inconsistent. And for good reason! Same goes for how to write numbers. Is it 100 or one hundred or a hundred? Nine or 9? Should street names be spelled out (North Madison Street) or abbreviated (N. Madison St.)?
And so on. There are a thousand variations on all of these issues.
This is why style books and style guides exist. They lay a comforting blanket of consistency over the varying styles and personalities held by a mishmash of writers and editors from all sorts of backgrounds and educations and with all sorts of temperaments.
In the end, if you like one spelling of a word over another, or one punctuation rule more than another ... so what?
A good editor will apply the rules of the publication. A great one will play those rules like an instrument.
A professional understands that what really matters is understanding a publication's style rules and applying them with care and thought and integrity, with an eye to clarity and consistency and an ear for rhythm and rhyme.
A good editor will apply the rules of the publication. A great one will play those rules like an instrument.
The only thing that matters in the end is that good writing communicates. The rest is just noise.
A last thought
As you can see, I believe the serial comma has its uses but don't like being told I have to use it in every case. That's my view. But I will happily apply the serial comma when it is needed, and when I'm editing copy for a publication that calls for its universal use I apply those serial commas with vigor and satisfaction.
In the end, most of these jeremiads in support of the Oxford comma are really spirited defenses of clear writing. Their examples, however tortured, are pointing out how bad punctuation can confuse people.
If only they stuck to that point rather than attack people who don't believe the serial comma is required in every case. They're confusing the rule for the purpose behind it.
I always try to keep in mind a philosophy I adopted long ago: Rules are intended to make things better. If they don't, they're bad rules.
Can you point out a single instance in which the use of the serial comma makes writing less clear? You might as well suggest that the use of question marks is unnecessary because most questions start with a question word and we know our readers aren't stupid so we don't need the punctuation.
In Dutch we don't have this and it's totally unnecessary (immoral seems a bit over the top, but I can go along with stupid ;-) ). When I writing in English I purposefully never use the Oxford comma. People are smart enough to understand it.