If postmodernists and rationalists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction-- that two opposing principles cannot both be simultaneously right?
Well, I don't know whether Postmodernists and Rationalists applaud tolerance -- some might, some might not, but tolerance or intolerance is not something I associate automatically with either postmodernism or with rationalism.
But what do you think tolerance is? Tolerance is not the automatic acceptance of each and every view point as equally valid and acceptable.
Tolerance is simply the belief that one does not sanction or discriminate against other beliefs simply because they differ from your own or even contradict your own beliefs. Tolerance simply means that one allows people who have beliefs that contradict yours to live in peace. It doesn't mean that you accept their beliefs as equally valid as yours, or that you never argue against their beliefs.
Also, tolerance doesn't imply that there is no limit to what one allows in society. Actions that are a public danger, for example, can be sanctioned without charges of hypocrisy, and even beliefs that lead to such actions can be discouraged.
I'm not sure what examples you think you see of hypocrisy among those advocating tolerance, but I suspect you don't quite get what tolerance actually means.
Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. --
Rick Perlstein