I have no opinion on Richard Carriers's views. My comment was his opinion on Tim O'Neill's views since that was relevant.
Surely if Carrier’s opinion of O’Neill is relevant to whether O’Neill is a trustworthy opinion on the subject of Jesus mythicism, then Carrier’s own lack of neutrality on the topic is at least as relevant, as is the fact that his views on mythicism are considered far out of the mainstream by his own peers.
Probably most peers just don't really care whether there was ever a walking, talking Jesus. One thing literally everybody agrees on is that all the historically significant development of Christianity happened after there was certainly no Jesus walking around expressing opinions as to how it should go.
There is not a hint of scholarship around whether anything He supposedly said was anything He did say, vs. being made up from whole cloth by Paul and his cohort, long after CE 37. Literally everybody agrees that the overwhelming majority of writings promoted as from that period are total fabrications, and that most of what might have been written then has been corrupted beyond all repair.