How ought one best understand an 'apophasis'? Is it the act of mentioning something by not mentioning it, or mentioning it by explicitly saying you won't mention it? Or does it encompass both meanings?
I'm aware that in rhetoric one can, by way of apophasis, employ a sneaky ad hominem. So, for example, a person could say of his opponent:
"I won't even begin to address my opponent's gambling problem".
They've effectively addressed their opponent's gambling problem by means of saying they won't address it.
However does this word enable one to address something by not addressing it?
Let's say in a politician's ten minute media campaign they address many things, but leave out climate change. Could this be considered an apophasis on their part, effectively addressing climate change (or their disregard for it) by not addressing it?
I'm very interested in this... any thoughts are appreciated.