I'd say you're right. The reason he said that is probably to pander to voters who hold some racist (and sexist) ideals.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Printable View
I'd say you're right. The reason he said that is probably to pander to voters who hold some racist (and sexist) ideals.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's hard to distinguish racism from economic classism, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I see rampant economic classism in both Rep and Dem.
EDIT: which they play off by convincing vast swaths of the lower class that they're middle class, then talk about buoying the middle class while the stadium full of lower (economic) class people cheer, in the mistaken belief that they are middle class.
Would you say that when 40% of the population is non-white that this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr-fd6SV...g&name=900x900
https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/...P-senators.jpg
...happens when public officials are selected democratically to represent that population?
Or do you think there's at all a possibility that these groups still don't have the same opportunity of access to positions of power than whites and that there is some merit to proactively working on equality of outcome in the short term until the underlying problems like gerrymandering, a class based education system and a two-tier justice system can be remedied?
I totally agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What I don't think we should do is treat people differently based on their race or gender.
Let me clarify a little on that.
The government should never treat people differently based on race or gender or other types of identity. The government should always have the same laws for everybody.
The people should *mostly* not treat people differently based on race or gender or other types of identity. This is *mostly* because sometimes it is warranted. Like if you're running a bikini barista, everybody is fine with hiring a specific type of person (attractive young straight biological female).
What we don't want is situations like Affirmative Action, where people are wrongly rewarded or punished because of their identity. Which, in the ironic twist, often harms those it tries to reward, but we could get into the details for why that is some other time.
The thing is, we've always said that, but never done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you're implying that it "should" be acceptable to not hire someone based exclusively on their appearance, then I'd say that's against the spirit, if not the letter of the law when it comes to anti-discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Ugly people need jobs, too.
If that employer is only hiring female employees for certain positions, then that's against the letter of the law for sexual discrimination.
In the long term, you're right, but what about oskar's point? It's been many decades since the civil rights movements following WWII and we still have a smattering of minorities represented in our national gov't.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I.e. all the BS we've been fed as a solution is laid bare for what it is. BS.
I'm not saying Affirmative Action is the best way forward, but it's clear that institutional racism is still rampant, and not being addressed.
How does a party end up with an ethnically homogenous house and senate when all ethnicities have equal opportunity? I'd say it doesn't. There is racial inequality.
Do you agree with that? If you don't, please explain why the GOP is so white.
Pretty good thread on why it's ridiculous to think that any of these people are in their positions because of merit.
https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/s...644563969?s=20
There is reason to believe that there is some imbalance of representation on the margins due to things like gerrymandering, and the effect is probably a couple percentage point difference than what they should be.
Other than that, the vast majority of identity representation in government appears to closely matche identity of voters.
Also, I am not comfortable talking about it like this, because I believe it is bad thinking and possibly racist. I'd rather we have a bunch of white people vote for Tim Scott instead of us getting bogged down in the poor thinking that there is some positive that comes from people voting based on identity such that demographics of representation reflect demographics of population.
That strikes me as being identity motivated, and I'm not into thinking like that.
The longest serving current black Senator is Tim Scott (R).Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I've spent a ton of time trying to figure out why there are certain demographic differences in voter preferences, and I haven't come up with any solid theory. The most telling item, in my estimation, is the urban/rural divide. But it by no means tells everything.
Let me help you out here: What if the reason so many shockingly underqualified white people get into powerful positions is because there is a structural affirmative action that gets them there. Hillary Clinton married into politics. Chelsea Clinton got born into it. Ivanka and Jared aren't senior advisors to the president because of their qualifications. To quote George Carlin: It's a big country club, and you're not in it.
On the current situation of Bernie dropping out: I don't buy any of the bullshit of "the campaign has been successful... we're moving the party to the left" I expect nothing from Biden except to lose spectacularly. It would be so easy for him to adopt Bernie's most popular policies. It would cost him no votes. Instead he's going: ok huge concession because Bernie is such a great friend: lowering medicare eligibility from 65 to 60. Fuck off.
What makes me not lose faith in humanity is that a lot of major Bernie supporters and youth groups for Bernie are seeing straight through it, and are thankfully not endorsing Biden. The second Bernie endorses Biden it's: fuck Bernie, it was nice while it lasted, but we care about policy. This gives me some hope. Not a lot... but it means that this was always about policy and never about personality.
And he's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What I don't want to do is justify racism/sexism/etc. in an attempt to change that.
So you agree that there is a power structure that overwhelmingly puts white people in positions of power, but any action to counteract that would be racism? Am I getting this right?
Thank you for asking me what I believe so that I can clarify:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Who gets power in the future is imbalanced in part due to who has power now. Trying to counter that by being racist is wrong.
Can you expand on what you mean by racist, and explain why it is wrong?
"If I am elected President and have the opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, I will appoint the first black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now; it's long overdue."Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
- Major Presidential Candidate, Joe Biden.
What makes this racism is that he is treating people differently because of their race.
Do you think it's possible to arrive at the ethnic distribution of the republican party without people being treated different because of their race?
Is it racism that there hasn't been a non-white judge for the first 200 years of the Supreme Court?
Racism is involved in all that and more.
Call me a Conscientious Objector. I won't use racism to try to change something.
It would be nice to have a meritocracy, but that's not happening in our lifetime. I think it's a step in the right direction to proactively work towards equality of outcome until equality of opportunity can be archived.
Totally agree.
What I fear is that doing the wrong thing (like using racism) may not lead to greater equality of opportunity.
Well in a surprise twist I agree with both of you. Two wrongs don't make a right, but systemic racist exists and needs to be dealt with. Quotas are problematic, and if they're used, it should be done with great care to not just create new problems. I don't have many better options though.
Recruitment processes across the world are discriminatory by design. CVs and applications should stop listing the applicants name, age, sex etc. None of those should matter, qualifications should. Yet studies show that they don't matter in the end, interviewees are given the job based on how they look and sound, intuitive impressions.
Spot on.
To hop on what you've said, use of things like quotas might create a negative psychological effect even if the stated quota isn't held to. For example, whenever somebody in a position screws up -- who happens to also be of an identity thought to be positively impacted by quotas -- there's one tool who calls that person a diversity hire. This situation makes things worse for everybody.
How so? How does people saying dumb shit make "things worse for everybody." What things?
It's a well-known flaw in democracy that it can lead to tyranny of the majority.
This is a fundamental pitfall that Madison argued cannot be ignored.
That old, 51 wolves and 49 sheep voting on what's for dinner... or how to apportion tax dollars.
The sheep are not going to fare well in either case.
Do you agree that if we believe in freedom for all of our citizens, then we have to take measures not fall into this trap?
If no, sup with that?
If yes... can you think of any way to do this that you wouldn't find "racist?"
It's a good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Perhaps the most useful method of the modern era seems to be prohibition of government infringement into given domains. Examples are in speech, assembly, press, religion, firearms, and a few others. But as you can tell, standards have not been adhered to, as people have opted to have government infringe in those spaces to varying degrees.
"Is so-and-so the best person for the job or is so-and-so a quota?"Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
"Did I get hired because I'm the best person for the job, or was it because of my skin color? Do my bosses treat me with kid gloves? Do people think I'm less good at things but treat me like I'm good at things because of my identity?"
What is this non-sequitur?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We're talking about minority representation in national political seats.
Can you answer the questions vis-a-vis the topic we're discussing, please?
Why do you adhere to "What if [underrepresented minority] isn't the best for the job?"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why not "How can we solve the problem of [underrepresented minority]'s lack of represenation?"
If you agree that underrepresentation of minorities is a problem, but you're against any possible remedy, then your words and your actions are not in sync.
Are you really just doing whatever you can to maintain the status quo because it benefits you?
I thought you changed the topic to discussing the flaw of democracy because of its innate property of tyranny of the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
About minority representation in political seats, those track very well right now (but not perfectly). Possibly the most effective way to close the small gap that remains is fixing gerrymandering, and there are probably other effective ways too.
The quotation lines are what many people think. The culture of diversity quotas leads to a lot of people thinking things like those couple lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Why are you being so cagey?
I'm not talking to "a lot of people." I'm talking to wufwugy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It was wufwugy who said quotas are racist. It is wufwugy who agrees that tyranny of the majority is a danger for democracies.
I'm asking wufwugy what is a viable remedy to the danger that is not "racist."
The most effective method I know of that has been historically used to reduce the problem of democracy's tyranny of the majority is to prohibit government intervention into given domains.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think I framed the issue of underrepresented minorities as a threat to democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It tracks well?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
[researches]
Oh. That does track well, actually. A little over 20% in both numbers. Race in America by % and minority representations in Congress and Senate by %.
TIL.
How do you find those numbers change when you get more granular in estimation?
I don't think if a demographic that makes up 60% of the population makes up 99% of hires that you'll end up with the most qualified people. Having zero diversity in your organization doesn't mean you don't have a quota, and it certainly doesn't mean that that quota doesn't have a skin color.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't look at Trump's cabinet and think: oh boy oh boy these people sure are quuuuuuuuuuualified! No, I think this is the result of inbreeding oligarchs lifting their dumbass children into positions that they have no business being in... and I'm not just talking about Trump's children. This is true for nearly all of them.
You mean looking state by state?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
District level, voter turnout, incumbency are a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
More effort than I'm willing to put in.
And the worst of it is that if we don't let them take from us in order to fund this, they'll come to our place of dwelling to shackle us and lock us in a cage. If we resist that, they'll spit lead through our chests.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Is that what's happening?
Yes.
On a related note, it'd be interesting to see how people would be doing right now if there were no governments coordinating response and bailing out companies.
We'll probably never know how well anybody did during this.
That's the one thing we will know. What we wont know is how well anybody would have done if things were handled differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
All those news stories about the IRS raids and mass incarcerations over tax fraud are really something, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Oh wait.
I've seen none of those.
What are you actually talking about?
I mean... beside the whole "taxation = theft" thing that I could find 100's of posts worth of discussion on in this forum.
Even if we humor the position that taxation is theft, wasn't your solution to make gov't's into businesses which have not even the faintest whiff of being accountable to their constituents?
Ok, so if I hire a Japanese hooker, am I being racist and sexist by choosing my hooker based on her race and gender? Should I hire an ugly hooker? Or a white one? Maybe black? How about a male hooker? Should I at least consider hiring these demographics? Should I hire a different hooker each time?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If I decide not to shave, am I being treated unfairly if I get overlooked for a job where I am expected to take pride in my appearance?
Should I be considered for a job at an Islamic girls school? How about an air hostess? What if I want to wear a dress?
Appearance is extremely important in many jobs. I don't think I'd make a great lap dancer.
All of those are private transactions, not public.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you were running a public brothel and you were hiring only Japanese women, then yeah. That seems like a problem to me.
However, if all the women are independent contractors, and not directly employed by you, and the fact that non-Japanese, non-women can't make any money there, because the clientele don't choose them, then that's different.
IDK. I think you might have a case.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The mere presence of a beard shouldn't be considered a sign of someone who doesn't take pride in their appearance.
This could be used as religious discrimination, as e.g. Orthodox Jews have long beards.
The girl's school sounds like a private school, and so no. Private institutions do not have to follow rules that prevent discrimination in public spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I see no reason you couldn't be a flight attendant. I see no reason you couldn't do that in whatever gender-projecting uniform you choose.
Yes, I think if the airline refused to hire you based all or in part because you are transvestite - that is and should be illegal.
Aww. Don't be so hard on yourself. You give great lap dances.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Models, Hollywood, etc. there are cases when hiring can be based on appearance. In those cases, as I understand it, special wages are given for that scrutiny.
Ok fair enough, I guess that wasn't the best example. But from the hooker's pov, being ugly is a problem. If I were a pimp, ok I probably wouldn't ethnically profile my bitches, but I wouldn't hire ugly fuckers. Appearance is still important.Quote:
All of those are private transactions, not public.
I used to work at a hotel, and if I had any visible stubble, I'd get a bollocking. I don't have a problem with that, my job was customer facing and it was an expensive hotel with a solid reputation. I'm sure if I claimed to be a pastafarian and it was a religious matter, they would make an exception, but for me this is a problem, I mean why should religious people be treated differently to me? Why should someone get special allowances because they believe in the tooth fairy? This isn't equality, this is the opposite of equality. It's why certain religious types are allowed to practically enslave their women, and anyone who doesn't like it gets branded a bigot.Quote:
This could be used as religious discrimination, as e.g. Orthodox Jews have long beards.
It is a privately owned school, yes, but it is still open to the public. Can I open up a private school and only employ attractive white women? Of course not. As an employer, I have to treat people equally, regardless of whether I am a private company or a public company.Quote:
The girl's school sounds like a private school, and so no. Private institutions do not have to follow rules that prevent discrimination in public spaces.
I'm not sure about this. I think an airline hostess is a job where appearance is important... ok, if a tranny "passes" and looks good in the uniform, then fair enough, but perhaps we're talking about a muscular man who wants to wear a dress. It's not going to look good, is it? But that's discrimination!Quote:
Yes, I think if the airline refused to hire you based all or in part because you are transvestite - that is and should be illegal.
Holywood is also a great example. If you have a character who happens to be a white male, is it discrimination to only interview white males for the roles? And if not, why not? Why should Holywood be given special treatment that, say, a school isn't granted?
Not sure I follow. You seem to suggest that we are now doomed, and implicitly suggesting we'd be better off without governments, am I right? What makes you say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're only backing me up by saying the hotel was out of line to tell you you can't wear a beard.
I think it's fair to object to that period where you look like an unbathed miscreant while that beard grows in. Maybe take vacation time until the beard grows thick enough to properly groom.
Having different standards for different employees based on their religion is discrimination. If one person can wear a beard, then anyone should be able to.
If the school is "open to the public" then it should follow all the anti-discrimination laws that are in place.
If it was a private school, I'd be comfortable if it was gender segregated as 2 schools under one management which hired men for the boys school and women for the girls school, but I don't want to have to decide whether or not that compromise fits in our current legal setting.
I can't think of any reason for gender segregation in public spaces aside from religious ones. So long as we're not in a religious state, I'm not inclined to make exceptions for a religious school to have discriminatory hiring practices. But again. I don't want to be the one making this call. I'm in favor of accepting different cultures, and there are plenty of people who attend gender-segregated schools for non-religious reasons.
IDK what your issue is with seeing a muscular man in a dress, but that seems to be the real issue you want to discuss.
What's your issue with that?
OR do you think we should be persecuting one person because other people don't like what their eyes see?
Trannys need jobs, too.
It's plain bigotry to say that anyone who "takes pride in their appearance" isn't fit for the customer service position, based on their appearance.
IDK how exactly it works in Hollywood and modeling, but it is the case those industries do hire based on appearance, and it is legal.
I mean, I doubt it's legal to hire like that for non-actors.
Not really. I think they have the right to make that demand, it's just that demand should be applied equally to all. You're suggesting they shouldn't make that demand, either on me or someone religious.Quote:
You're only backing me up by saying the hotel was out of line to tell you you can't wear a beard.
Indeed. Alternatively, if I can't, nobody can.Quote:
Having different standards for different employees based on their religion is discrimination. If one person can wear a beard, then anyone should be able to.
No problem, if we're at a bar, or a festival, or even in a public park. But in a situation where I expect professionalism from those who are providing me with a service, I expect them to dress professionally. I'm just using this example as a source of humour.Quote:
IDK what your issue is with seeing a muscular man in a dress, but that seems to be the real issue you want to discuss.What's your issue with that?
It's something of a misuse of the word "persecution" imo. This is a matter of professionalism. I'm not suggesting the tranny shouldn't be hired, just that he/she/whatever is required to dress professionally. I don't think a male wearing female clothing is a professional look. It's not a question of not liking what I see, it's a question of appropriate behaviour in the workplace.Quote:
OR do you think we should be persecuting one person because other people don't like what their eyes see?
We're on the same page with the beards.
So you're moving the bar from requiring that person "take pride in their appearance" to saying that being transvestite is unprofessional?
How is that not bigotry?
The "pride in appearance" thing relates to beards, not dresses. And I do not consider it bigotry to demand professionalism. Can a female air hostess wear jeans and a band t-shirt? No. Is that bigotry? Of course not. So why should trannies be allowed to wear what an employer deems inappropriate clothing at work?
Being a transvestite is not unprofessional, no more than being a goth isn't unprofessional. Dressing inappropriately for work is unprofessional.
The assertion that the female flight attendant can't wear jeans and T-shirt is a non-sequitur, because there is a uniform for that position and it isn't jeans and T-shirt. Besides, plenty of women wear jeans and T-shirt and aren't projecting male gender.
Some jobs require the wearing of a uniform. There's no reason those uniforms should or shouldn't be gender-projecting, IMO.
But the choice of what gender to project is none of anyone's business but the person making that choice.
I don't accept the goth statement, because I don't recall hearing of hundreds of years of persecution against goths. Whereas the persecution of gender and sex minorities has deep roots in our culture. I can't think of any time in my life I've heard widespread use of the word "goth" as derogatory. Whereas "gay" once meant happy, and has turned into meaning generically "unfavorable."
When the society has gotten to the point where institutional bigotry is accepted, that's a problem, IMO. When it gets to the point that the social norm is to think certain minorities shouldn't be allowed to work certain jobs, then that's a big problem, to me.
It wasn't about "projecting male gender", it was purely an example of unprofessional attire at work. Indeed, there is a uniform, but in many cases there is no official uniform, and instead there is a "dress code". That applies to trannies equally.Quote:
The assertion that the female flight attendant can't wear jeans and T-shirt is a non-sequitur, because there is a uniform for that position and it isn't jeans and T-shirt. Besides, plenty of women wear jeans and T-shirt and aren't projecting male gender.
So are you saying that a male airline worker can choose to wear the female uniform and not be presenting themself unprofessionally?Quote:
But the choice of what gender to project is none of anyone's business but the person making that choice.
Goths are discriminated against. How long this has been happening is irrelevant, discrimination isn't worse just because it's been happening for a longer amount of time. Again, this is about dress. Goths have a particular style of dress, and it would be considered by most employers to be inappropriate in the workplace. Refusing to hire someone because they are a goth is equally as bad as refusing to hire someone for being a tranny. At the same time, telling a goth they cannot dress as they please in the workplace is equally as acceptable as saying the same to a tranny.Quote:
I don't accept the goth statement, because I don't recall hearing of hundreds of years of persecution against goths.
Seriously? You work in a university and have never observed discrimination against goths? I find this extremely surprising.Quote:
I can't think of any time in my life I've heard widespread use of the word "goth" as derogatory
"Gay" to me simply means "homosexual", although the word can be used in the context you describe.Quote:
Whereas "gay" once meant happy, and has turned into meaning generically "unfavorable."
You seem to be suffering from selective reading. I'm not suggesting certain demographics (this isn't about minorities) should be excluded from jobs, just that they should act in the same professional manner expected of all other employees.Quote:
When it gets to the point that the social norm is to think certain minorities shouldn't be allowed to work certain jobs
How do you feel about transgender folk being allowed to compete against women in sport? This for me is a serious problem that will ultimately result in the destruction of competitive women's sport. Those born female will see no benefit to taking sport seriously as they grow up because they will lack any serious sense of ambition. Women's sport will effectively be replaced by transgender sport, and there will be significantly less public interest.
In our scramble to protect the right of a man to identify as female, we're shitting on the rights of females.
I want to be clear... I have no problem with transgender folk, nor gays. I just don't think they deserve any special treatment. If a man can identify as a woman, why can't I identify as Icelandic? Or, better still, a 70 y/o entitled to a state pension? What makes their delusion any more acceptable than mine?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's such a culturally subjective thing what counts as a gender, how many there are, and where to draw the lines between them.
It's objectively not a binary aspect of humanity.
It's objectively true that not all humans have XX or XY chromosomes.
Forcing all people to gender identify as a binary choice is widely accepted in Western culture, but that doesn't make it morally sound.
I work in a university full of uber-wealthy students. The ratio of
[students who come from the top 1% of tha moniez]/[all the students]
at my school is bigger than any other school in the US. More rich kids are at WashU than Harvard, Yale, you name it. Also, the admissions are so selective that 90% of the student body comes from the top 10% of their HS graduating class in GPA.
There's not much of a goth scene.
Goths being discriminated against in personal, individual interactions is people being people. Students forming cliques and razzing each other happens everywhere, but is not widespread discrimination of a %-age of people that are in every culture on the planet.
Being goth is a cultural identity. Being gender non-binary is a human identity.
I'm saying that if the company has an appropriate dress code, the notion that the plumbing under the clothes matters is discrimination.
I knew there was a reason I never see a goth monkey at uni!
I disagree.Quote:
Yes.
But it's really not that complicated. It's very binary, at least as far as nature is concerned.Quote:
It's such a culturally subjective thing what counts as a gender, how many there are, and where to draw the lines between them.
This is a very small percentage of humans. The vast, vast majority of men who identify as women have XY chromosomes, they are male as far as nature is concerned.Quote:
It's objectively true that not all humans have XX or XY chromosomes.
Who's forcing someone to be a particular gender? God? Society? How is this not the same logic as god or society forcing me to be 41, instead of 70?Quote:
Forcing all people to gender identify as a binary choice is widely accepted in Western culture, but that doesn't make it morally sound.
But it really isn't. It's only discriminatory in a world where someone with XY chromosomes is legally a woman, and that is a world which is confused.Quote:
I'm saying that if the company has an appropriate dress code, the notion that the plumbing under the clothes matters is discrimination.
The future is bright and I'm unlikely to ever take a stance against government like I once did.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
My post was an observation of something we deal with.
Ah ok. Sorry, telepathy is sometimes hard. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But that's an interesting bit of news by itself, what made you change your stance?
Personally I don't think we're doomed, as in going extinct. Our societies will look a lot different after this, that's for sure, and there's gonna be a lot of suffering, but I don't think this is even gonna make a dent on the number of bipedal apes on the planet.
My change is probably because taking such a big stance like being "against government" or "for government" is really stupid. I'll instead try to evaluate each item in concrete terms and on its own merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Wait wuf are you back? And will you play werewolf? And is that AOC? Shit why, trying to be controversial and pretend you're d0mb?
I'm unlikely to do WW anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
AOC because I think she's hot for a racist, and only Kanye can stop her.
Why would anyone want to stop her, she's ripping the Dems apart? Also you gotta join WW, if we can get a decent game together at least. I know you want to. You're just stuck in your house for a few more weeks anyway.
Come play one game, for old time's sake. You too busy with work?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Trump ripped the Republicans apart too. Ripped it so hard that the party is now the Trump party.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
It appears to me that AOC has the skill to do that in the Dem party, and might want to.
Her marketing talents are Trump-level.
There's nobody else in politics at that level. Maaaaaaaaaaybe Matt Gaetz.
Kanye is at that level, but he's not exactly "in politics". He's also potentially above that level. The man is perfecting the High Ground Maneuver like nobody else.
:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
good postQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
ahahhaQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy