Using Popper as an excuse for not engaging with those you find intolerant is lazy. The paradox is that unlimited - not any - tolerance is self-defeating. Here's the man himself on the subject:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. -- The Open Society and Its Enemies

Popper doesn't conclude that one must absolutely intolerate intolerance, but that one must reserve the right to not tolerate intolerance when the expression of that intolerance "answers arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." One might even argue that by refusing to "meet them on the level of rational argument, but beginning by denouncing all argument" you are in fact that intolerant person that Popper argues must be met with intolerance.