No, this has nothing to do with politicians; no, Donald Trump is not retaliating Zodiac Killer theories with a grammar killing spree campaign. What this is about is, in the words of Vampire Weekend, exactly "who gives a f*ck about an Oxford comma." The answer is quite a few people, and just maybe you should, too.

"Highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector." "I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin."

More amusing meets more confusing thanks to the death of the serial comma. The following is a testament to the importance of this punctuation, an ode to the Oxford comma. The Oxford comma is perhaps one of the most controversial conundrums one faces when writing––there are no set rules, it's the Wild West out there, varying from teacher to teacher, publication to publication.

The Oxford comma keeps things neat, orderly, and tidy; creating a break/breath for the voice in your head. However, this break is exactly why the serial comma is so often slashed, and most especially now. This is in no way a "all ya young people with yer face-in-yer-phone devices" accusatory claim, rather a fact: we, as a society today, want a fast-paced and efficient reads, no extraneous bits, just "here it is take in the information"; it's why we have such a deep love affair with listicles––they're quick, clean, cohesive.

With so much screen time, our eyes (and minds) tend to switch through at rapid fire, added to the "six second judgement," and the average YouTube ad video lasting around 15 seconds, making 30 feel like a stretch. We want to go, and go, and keep going until we reach a full stop with no yields––a period, in this case––and then NEXT THING. By dropping the Oxford comma, it affects the read-voice in your head:

On my shelf there are onions, papaya, and honeydew.

Now:

On my shelf there are onions, papaya and honeydew.

Notice a difference? How does that "sound"? The second one probably flows faster, less stops: A more efficient read! Sounds good, maybe even great, right? More efficient reading, more absorbed in the same amount of time––Go, and go. Got it? Good. However, my argument (and that of many others) is that by dropping the Oxford comma, readability is being sacrificed for read-path; quickness for cohesiveness. Now let's try this:

I like stoats, wearing wedges, and scarves.

And now:

I like stoats, wearing wedges and scarves.

With the removal of the Oxford comma, the statement suddenly goes from a a list of a few favorite things to someone talking about small, furry mink-like creatures wearing a pair of Jeffrey Campbells and neck wear. Though it is often argued context is key (e.g., if this were "A list of things I enjoy" we, the readers, would more than likely understand that these items were separate), the English language is complex, and with the newest addition to the language lexicon of internet speak, the perceived tone of text (e.g., to end in a period or not to end in a period) is more ambiguous and open-ended than ever.

This Great Comma Debate has been going on for years. However, it seems especially relevant now, with the split of publications between print and digital. The Oxford comma is more often than not pulled from online publications, yet still part of the formatting in print books, magazines, periodicals––Why is this? For the same reason there is often a difference in typefaces. This, what you're reading, for example is a sans-serif font. With a backlit screen and handheld reading, your eyes move through the letter form at a faster pace with less pausing in between words and paragraphs. While on the other and printed material generally uses a serif font, each word and letter form clearly delineated, making it more visually memorable on the printed page, allowing the reader to pause and "taste" the words, as to straight up "swallowing" them, as we often do when reading a quick click-bait article on the subway or waiting in a queue just to fill the time. Why do you think 2000 seems to take ages to read in print, but so short on screen?

Call it (and me) old fashioned if you will, but as previously mentioned, this debate is nothing new. The New York Times Style Guide of 1937 had written in it:

"There are certain places where for the sake of clarity and good form the presence of a comma is obligatory, but on the other hand a too liberal use of this form of punctuation tends to slow up the pace of the reading matter and to create confusion and hesitancy in the mind of the reader."

Which, yes, was a printed publication only at the time. Though I'll not go into it too deeply, the history of this debate (on both sides of the pond, as the UK and Australia tend to avoid the Oxford comma altogether in style guides [despite its name origin]) is worth looking into; definitely a "I came here for the comments" debate. A complaint at one point to the founding editor of the New Yorker, Harold Ross:

"All those commas make the flag seem rained on. They give it a furled look. Leave them out, and Old Glory is flung to the breeze, as it should be."

This comment by a James Thurber, claiming his side to complete comma cutting with "the red white and blue" as to "the red, white, and blue."

Ross's response?

"write a piece about it, and I'll punctuate the flag any way you want it—in that one piece."

I, for one, like to have my read neat, compartmentalized, and given to me as the writer intended––I don't think stuffing a stoat in a pair of shoes would be a terribly pleasant task; I like that breath-break and list; I like to have something to build upon and look forward to at the end of a list, with that punctuated point finalizing and hitting home. Though killing off this comma may seem to "clear" the read path, I strongly stand for it, finding makes my read easier, in fact. Without the comma, the reader's brain is forced to recollect context, and that can take up two seconds more for your brain to connect that information. We, as humans, expect things to fall in a series of three, so the sudden drop-off of the comma disrupts that pattern.

So really, who is the winner in the time-saving game? Comma at me, bro.
(Or just comment below.)