Why I hate, forbid and avoid use of the oxford comma

I am about to take a very unpopular stance today, namely, the fact that I don’t believe in the oxford comma.

But how? I thought you were one of the good people.

I used to be like most of you. I though the comma was need to keep list items from comingling with one another.
For example, the sentence “highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector,” could use a serial comma after 800-year-old demigod to make it clear Nelson Mandela isn’t a dildo collector.

See, it works! You’re crazy not to use it.

You’re right. I think based on the current structure of the sentence; a comma is needed, but therein lies the problem of the oxford comma. Too often it’s used as a crutch for writers incapable of clarifying context without the use of the comma.
For example, the above sentence could also be rewritten as such,

“The global tour includes highlights such a lengthy conversation with Nelson Mandela in Africa, an encounter with an 800-year-old demigod in Europe and a not-all awkward conversation with a dildo collector in America.”

Wait, I wasn’t confused at all this time. What changed?

Now that’s a pretty sentence that not only provides more information about the subject at hand, but also doesn’t require an oxford comma.
Why you ask?
Because each of the subjects are distinct enough to stand on their own, which means one less comma, and one less comma is always a good thing.

But distinct subjects should be made distinct, shouldn’t they?

Let me be clear. I have no problem with the oxford comma in its original context. I understand the need to differentiate list items from one another.
However, I feel if the list items can be confused with one another the writer should either reorganize the list or clarify it instead of asking the reader to recognize yet another verbal cue on the page. As usual, I have prepared what I hope are good solutions to the problem.

Force everyone to spend time working as journalists: Editors should know AP style, and AP style bans the use of the oxford comma. The continual hate, degradation and humiliation that comes from screwing up grammar for a newspaper editor would quickly remedy the use of the oxford comma.

Charge for comma use: In this manner, important commas would be kept out of necessity, but superfluous ones, such as the oxford comma, would be struck from the writing tool box of most writers. This idea comes from the day of the printing press. Any extra element required more ink, so naturally the oxford comma fell out of use, or it did for the poorer folks.

Get rid of lists all together: This concept would force people to change the manner in which they think. Concepts could only ever be thought of one at time. The idea that some concept would have multiple components would be impossible. Also the world of lists might explode, which may or may not affect the physical world.

Ignore the use of the oxford comma, move on: I think this time, this option of just giving up would probably be the easiest and simplest to implement. And of course, I never said anything about no longer being self-righteous toward users of the oxford comma.

So that’s it
Yup. Again, I have no definite answers, just hopes for a brighter, clearer and better future for grammar. And always, here's a quick look at what someone funnier than I has to say on the subject of oxford commas. Travel on.