"potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact."
This is, in my experience, nonsense. The only thing disclaimers add to a good faith discussion is the ability of people to do exactly what you claim they'll do "after the fact", during the discussion. Please stare at any comment with a disclaimer from a group people don't like (uber, for example), and count how many comments are about where they work instead of their argument.
IE They are upset they turned out to agree with someone that belongs to some group they don't like, or whatever.
It is also against the very definition of good faith you describe to do that kind of thing "after the fact", regardless of who you are. The fact that you believe disclaimers are necessary to a good faith discussion means you aren't actually having discussions in good faith.
It doesn't have to be in more formal settings such as in publications by journalists - I also see disclaimers stated by others in HN comments often.