If you wrote the stripper last, the comma has no issue functioning clearly.
And you can do something similar for the original version of that image which is in favour of the Oxford Comma.
We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers.
See? Oxford Comma not needed.
But you could be talking *to* Stalin and the strippers *about* JFK. Language sucks.
Huh? The original version of the image I posted has the example sentences: "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin" vs. "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin". The latter version without the Oxford comma is ambiguous because it could be saying that JFK and Stalin are the strippers. My example is showing that the Oxford Comma can
introduce ambiguity. ashersky points out that you can remove ambiguity by shuffling the order of the subjects, but the same holds true for the original example.
Basically, none of these examples are a good reason to say that you should always (or never) use the Oxford Comma. As I said, you should do whichever is clearer. If it's clear either way, do whatever you prefer.
It's also worth noting that some sentences are ambiguous either way. For example, we can talk about 3 people:
1. We invited JFK, a communist dictator, and a stripper.
2. We invited JFK, a communist dictator and a stripper.
Sentence 1 uses the Oxford Comma but it may ambiguously suggest that JFK is a communist dictator. Sentence 2 omits the comma but it may ambiguously suggest that JFK is both a communist dictator
and a stripper. But either way, the ambiguity can be solved (mostly) by moving JFK to the end of the sentence.