I don't see a paradox, or rather I depart from Popper's paradox in a way which resolves it.

if tolerance = tolerance

and intolerance = ~tolerance

than ~(~intolerance) = tolerance

Thus the only form of intolerance which is tolerable in a just society is the intolerance of intolerance and this is not logically inconsistent or irrational using the symbolic logic above.

This requires more complex analysis and terms since we need to better define what tolerance is with respect to the nuance and complexity of a society and civilization rather than mere logic.

I tend to perceive in terms of impositionality and the need for justification being non-arbitrary. I would thus propose that any significant and arbitrary imposition is a thing which society should restrict. yet Human beings tolerate myriad forms of imposition. We tend to tolerate arbitrary and more extreme forms of imposition less frequently. If we break these forms down and understand the basis for tolerance of them, we might better come to understand what forms of tolerance and intolerance are acceptable. Examples of imposition in this context include the production of sound, or existing within the visual range of a person, consuming finite resources, being an emotional being (imposing one's emotional needs on others), etc.... Most people would be entirely accepting of another person producing sound, but would be intolerant of it in a movie theater or during the middle of a funeral or wedding ceremony. similarly if a young child or a person with a significant psychological condition was verbally disruptive we would tend to tolerate such sonic impositions more readily. Who is doing it, where it is done, what they are doing, why they are doing it, etc... all play into our tolerance of many things.

So, intolerance of intolerance seems to be a rather narrow and also particularly variable set of ideas. the generally agreed to restrictions to the arbitrary imposition of a person or group on the basis of race, sex, gender, or nationality is based in this understanding of intolerance of intolerance. I think intolerance is arbitrary and thus subject to justified intolerance if it is based in any ascribed status (since a person cannot choose or change this status within reason). accountability thus also plays a significant role. if one cannot be accountable, within reason, the intolerance of them is unjustified and thus should not be tolerated. For example if a person is Russian, this alone is not a sufficient reason to hold them accountable for the actions of the administration which presides over them. Most people would agree that a citizen of a country is not accountable for the actions for their country's policies in the same way that the representatives of their government are. Similarly a black person or a white person is not accountable for the actions of other white or black people, etc.... Each person is accountable for themselves, and we ought to tolerate or not tolerate them based on the degree of arbitrariness that their imposition, their behavior or assertion, has on others.