Join me in the revolution

I always use the Oxford comma.  Not only does it look better—why anyone ever thought that removing it was a good idea is beyond me—but not using it can lead to confusion.  Here's a specific example of why I always use it.  

A recent article’s subtitle from the WSJ reads: “The group is in discussions with Israel over releasing 40 women, children, elderly and sick captives.”  We don't know if “the group” would be releasing only men who are "elderly and sick," or "men who are elderly" and "men who are sick," but not necessarily both.   That’s a dramatic difference—especially if you are, say, the parent of a man being held captive who is sick but not elderly.

Instead, we are left to guess.  Without the Oxford comma, we just don't know.  I suspect (but can't possibly know for sure) that they mean: “The group is in discussions with Israel over releasing 40 women, children, elderly[,] and sick captives.”

And why did we get away from the glorious Oxford comma?  I looked into it, and it is no longer beyond me.  One reason offered is this: “The use of the Oxford comma, many people argue, is overly pedantic, and in some situations, its use can sound pompous and hypercorrect. It is usually perfectly possible to discern the meaning of a sentence without it.”

I hadn't realized that our intentional dumbing down started so long ago.  Apparently, the powers that be are worried about appearing “hypercorrect” and would avoid doing so even if it means that the sentence will only “usually” remain clear without the beloved comma.  (The website goes to great lengths to show that the Oxford comma can also create confusion, rather than eliminate it, but in doing so it uses examples of commas that are not actually Oxford commas, and it also uses hypothetical examples that only ignoramuses would write.)

Fuck that.  Always use your Oxford comma.  Join me in the revolution.