This article essentially serves as an extension of S01E02, in which I delved into various organizations’ policies on the Oxford comma, because my elitist philosophy compels me to have others look toward authority for their answers, especially when I’m authority.

I discussed the most important and grammarful organizations such as The Chicago Manual of Style, the Modern Language Association, and the American Psychological Association. It goes without saying that the most significant one, the most noble one, the bastion of hope, righteousness, and inconceivable bravery within hostile British territory, the glorious basilica of all language matters, Oxford University, is among these. And don’t get me started on that rumor that they denounced it, because a certain iniquitous spy within the palace’s grounds who made such an arrogant assertion did not nearly represent the infallibility of Oxford in so doing, and he may rightfully be labeled as literally Hitler.

Now, in addition to these, we can find numerous examples of grammatical justice in our everyday lives. In short, a decisive majority of reputable sources employ the Oxford comma when compared to those that do not. Every dictionary, online or in the scary world, that I’ve read—and one might assume that I’ve read an inordinate quantity—uses the comma. Oxford Dictionary included, obviously. I would link to more, but they tend to have hella ads and my browser is only so resilient.

Obviously, an arbitrary selection of anecdotal examples would prove insufficient with a grammatical structure that can exist in practically any context, but when it comes to any piece of trustworthy anything written in English, the Oxford comma prevails by a noticeable margin, and you can see this for yourself if you masochistically subject yourself to my habit of analyzing such matters.

Onto relatively more tangible instances: Despite the egocentric tendency of journalist companies to drop the comma, there exist some (the more reputable, of course), that do not pursue this infamous policy. At the least, even such organizations as British The Guardian recognize that its absence may cause ambiguity, and while I do not support this promiscuous flip-flopping, it serves as an implicit yearning for truth and a step in the right direction. The comma also makes fluctuating appearances at The Atlantic, but I got no idea what’s going on with those guys.

And this is a trite argument of which I do not entirely approve, but for the sake of assuming some sort of comprehensiveness, Shakespeare used it. I also contemplated discussing translations of the Bible with regard to this matter, but because of reasons, never mind.

Finally, and most importantly, how often does one see a zealous advocate against the Oxford comma? Those who support it do so because of its brilliant and innate righteousness, while those who fail to use it are more inclined to turn a blind, conniving eye, much like the contrast in volume between those who are the victims and those who are the proponents of social injustices upon which I will not elaborate. I naturally rely upon ethos with this case, for you may be aware that I more readily than the average individual immerse myself into the most unwelcoming depths of the Internet in which productive arguments on the subject of grammar occur. If ever you find somebody whose fervor on this matter parallels my own, and who also opposes the Oxford comma, please point them in my general direction.