Misusing common words isn't a good sign for any argument. To allow something to arise, whether it be a thought or anything else, is not suppression. To note it is not suppression. To not focus on something or not return to it is also, not suppression. There is no act or mechanism of suppression or inhibition.

I read the paper before I commented, and one of the cited ones from it that mentioned suppression. The talk about active inhibition. For example, from the paper you linked:

> Despite these efforts, unwanted thoughts sometimes per- sist. People can try to ignore these thoughts, negate them, sup- press them, correct for them, or think about something else, but unfortunately, these mental activities can be difficult to implement and do not always work in the intended ways (Wegner & Erber, 1992). For example, attempts to negate or suppress stereotypes and prejudice can backfire and produce an increase in unwanted thoughts (e.g., Gawronski, Deutsch, Mbirkou, Seibt, & Strack, 2008; Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Wheeler, 1996; Monteith, Sherman, & Devine, 1998). Also, attempts at correction for unwanted thoughts can lead to biases in the opposite direction (e.g., Martin, 1986; Schwarz & Bless, 1992; Strack & Mussweiler, 2001; Wegener & Petty, 1997; Wilson & Brekke, 1994).

None of that, regardless of whatever semantic distortions you put on it, is allowing something to arise and simply noting it. That is the process of mindfulness. That is not:

- to ignore

- to correct

- to suppress

- to think about something else

So it's not a semantic argument at all.

Please, try not to call me "dude". Suppress the impulse if that makes more sense to you.