I think Popper's paradox does nothing really but talk around an issue by changing the argument. Intolerance is not black and white, it is contextual. You can be intolerant of those who break the law, because they break the laws that hold society together (at a basic level). Paradoxes often aren't so problematic if you take them out of their own frame of reference (e.g. Zeno's paradox & Achilles).

I think the context we are referring to here is really free speech. Should we tolerate speech (opinions) that we despise or disagree with? Absolutely. And here we have the attackers responding to feeling insulted (framed as 'intolerance') by not being accepted/agreed with. Then they respond in kind and no progress is made.

You show me those people responding to equal/higher hostility and I guarantee I can show just as many examples of the opposite. And what I mean there is not "you're side is worse," I mean there are aggressive and horrible actors on both sides, who should not be the frame of reference for debate. But too often they are, and too often examples of hostility as used as an excuse for escalation or to avoid real debate.

It's nice that you personally think those things, but none of those things you personally think override or disprove Popper's paradox of tolerance, and thus none of those things you personally think will convince people to tolerate the intolerance that is, just as a single example, right-wing anti-trans intolerance

indeed, responding to, say, right-wing intolerance of trans people, by not tolerating it, is totally okay, despite your FUD, for reasons described by Popper

don't like your own intolerance of e.g. trans people, and actual attacks on them, to be responded to? maybe keep your intolerance and actual attacks to yourself, problem solved