Sure, this seems like a good idea! Thanks for making an effort to come up with a specific proposal for how to make further discussion more productive.
I also note that if you are going to DEFY CONVENTION in a COMMON PUBLIC SPACE it is courteous to ANNOUNCE WHAT YOU'RE DOING if people seem confused. The internet is GLOBAL so as long as you are using ENGLISH then the expectations apply EQUALLY TO YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE USING ENGLISH IN THE INTERNET COMMONS regardless of whether you live in the U.S. or Belize or South Africa or whatever. YOUR INTERPRETATION of this as Eurocentrism is correct only inasmuch as ENGLISH IS A EUROPEAN LANGUAGE. So yes, by communicating in English you too HAVE BOUGHT INTO A EUROCENTRIC CONCEPT. Happily, however, it's easy to code-switch. Now that you've explained that you're using it for emphasis--I make heavy use of italics for emphasis myself, so I certainly endorse the general idea--I can interpret you closer to the way you had intended. No worries! You could always have just said that you use caps for emphasis and not to interpret it as yelling because you don't mean that much emphasis by it.
Regarding banding together for mutual aid--surely you haven't forgotten all the measures slave-owners used to prevent slaves from banding together for mutual aid (including, but not limited to, slave patrols)? Surely you haven't forgotten the times when white supremacists saw blacks banding together for mutual aid and being so scared of it that they engaged in barbaric acts to make it stop (ranging from outright murder to things like Sugar Hill)?
So I don't know how you can maintain that banding together for mutual aid isn't natural. Of course it is. If it wasn't, white supremacists wouldn't have had to go to such great lengths to stop it, and wouldn't have been so panicked when it happened despite their best efforts.
Furthermore, I linked several papers last time documenting that it happens with only the barest of inducement.
Now, back to the template. You covered only the asking half. I'll give an example of answers too, and if you concur that this is what you had in mind, then perhaps we can productively use this format for as long as we both determine that there's anything worth discussing.
So, as an example, I might answer your examples as so:
----------------------
1) Would you please identify the three major forms of racism?
Individual, systemic, and internalized are the usual three (subsuming institutional racism as part of systemic racism). Because internalized racism generally receives a lot less attention than the other two, even though it's rather different in character, you might not call that a "major form". And because institutional racism is fairly different in character from other types of systemic racism (because institutional racism consists of specific policies), you might also mean individual, institutional, and systemic.
2) Would you please provide a comprehensive definition of each of the major forms of racism?
No, I can't provide a comprehensive definition because there are too many situations which cannot be cleanly classified. Most English cannot be defined comprehensively; dictionaries try because definitions are a compact way to share knowledge, but most usage is based on example not precise definition. Thus, at best I can provide substantially correct definitions:
(a) Individual racism is prejudice against people of other races, typically via negative stereotyping. Depending on who you're talking to, there may or may not be a distinction between individual racism and racial bigotry. When there is, the former additionally asserts an expectation of institutional power that can translate harmful outlook to harmful outcome.
(b) Systemic racism is patterns of thought, law, or behavior that systematically disadvantages people of one race in practice even if one can imagine an alternate history where the same would be benign. Again, some people additionally require an extra level of institutional power or societal context before it may be called "racism".
(c) Internalized racism is a psychological state where one feels bound by or consciously or subconsciously accepts the negative stereotypes applied to one's racial group, causing one to unjustly devalue oneself. Because this is not discussed as much, I am uncertain whether the power dimension is also required here by people who require it in the other cases. I presume so.
3) Would you please provide an example of each of the major forms of racism?
(a) The Antioch police officers sharing racially prejudicial messages on Facebook were committing individual racism.
(b) The different severity of sentences given to people taking or selling various forms of cocaine are correlated to the racial profile of consumption, resulting in an institutionally racist pattern of incarceration of black people.
(c) In many classroom settings, black students speak up less often and less forcefully. When this occurs, it is likely that internalized racism plays a role (but depending on context, this could also be self-preservation).
----------------------
All good? Then I have some questions for you.
(1) What is "implicit bias"? What is the significance of the term "implicit"?
(2) Does conscious awareness of the possibility of implicit bias negate the bias?
(3) Do DEI trainings typically talk about implicit bias?
(4) Have DEI trainings produced substantial documented reduction in the kind of undesirable outcomes that are produced by implicit bias?
(5) What is "othering"? Why is it a problem?
(6) What strategies are known to reduce othering?
(7) What strategies are known to exacerbate othering?
Feel free to refer to the materials that I linked last time. Also, feel free to skip some questions, or answer more briefly than I did in my example answers above, in order to not have answering be an undue burden.