Make some mutable objects, lets say a std::vector of Geese. Spin up two threads, A and B. Make a pointer, or a reference, or by whatever means you prefer, like an index, the same Goose from the vector, and give both A and B that pointer/ reference/ index whatever.
Both threads can now change the Goose at the same time. That's a data race. As a result it destroys Sequential Consistency, but that barely matters in C++ because it also is Undefined Behaviour, your program no longer has any meaning.
In (safe) Rust it won't let you give both A and B a way to mutate the same Goose at the same time, thus data races can't occur, thus you have Sequential Consistency, and your program has a defined meaning.
C++ has this IFNDR - "Ill-Formed: No Diagnostic Required" in the standard which marks various things as simultaneously not C++ and so the standard doesn't define what should happen, and yet also your standards conforming compiler is not required to diagnose this and tell you about the problem.
You can presumably argue that all those things aren't "permitted" but there is no way to detect for sure if you wrote any of them, and if you did your entire C++ program has no defined meaning and might do anything at all.
There's a reason this exists. Rice's Theorem says non-trivial Semantic questions are Undecidable. You thus can't always correctly decide whether a program has some non-trivial semantic property, but C++ wants to require a whole lot of such properties. So, when it's difficult they just say the compiler must err on the side of emitting nonsense programs.
[Rust takes the other path here, if the Rust compiler can't be sure that your program has the required semantic properties you get an error. This is rare but annoying, typically you can easily modify your program to satisfy the compiler or when you try to do so you realise actually the compiler was right, this program doesn't have the required semantic properties]
I am increasingly confident that C++ made the wrong choice here, neither of these outcomes is desirable but the Rust outcome has a negative feedback loop - if changes make Rust's compiler annoy more programmers with spurious errors there's pushback. The C++ approach has positive feedback, as C++ gets less well-defined people's compilers accept whatever nonsense they wrote, nobody tells the committee to stop doing this - until one day it blows up in their face.
