Two recent questions asked us to explore why an event didn't happen.
Technically speculation on alternative histories is out of scope, but I don't think these two questions should be out of scope. While I personally don't find them very interesting, I believe they fit solidly within the realm of historical scholarship. Although it is phrased as an exploration of something that didn't happen but could have (counterfactual), the real emphasis is on identifying the factors that inhibited or facilitated the events in question and identifying the differences between two similar situations, and I think that is legitimate history. Ultimately, I think that I'll learn something from a satisfactory answer to the question. (I certainly learned something when I tried to answer the question and found out my assumptions were.... not as truthy as I thought they were.)
If others don't feel the need to draw a distinction between these and counterfactuals, then we can ignore the problem.
But there is also the possibility that these are examples of an anti-pattern - a way of forming a question where the presentation of the question subverts the substance of the question.
(I'm going to dissect Mr. Campbell's questions as an example; no disrespect is intended to Mr. Campbell, but I think clarity requires some specifics).
In my opinion, these questions would be improved by clarifying the unstated assumption(s). Both questions are really asking why chattel slavery succeeded in British colonies, but not in these other situations. There is an implicit assumption that the situations are similar.
Would we be better off to advise people to phrase it in the positive? "Why did slavery succeed Here but not Here?