How is that even a paradox? It's simply speaking an optimization problem in two dependent variables, and it looks confusing because of an impossible premisses and the conflation of terms.

Arriving at the paradox that an infinitely tolerant society can be also infinitely intolerant at the same time. Which is pretty much a given if intolerance and tolerance are axiomatically on the same scale (as the nameing of the terms would suggest).

This is pretty much equivalent to this thread's topic, that a arbitrarily reasonable person may tell somebody they were not reasonable, not just slightly less reasonable or actually, reasonably bad, but just approachung zero reasonable, or infinite un-reasonable. But no, there's no logic in this.

Assume positive intent until someone proves your assumption wrong. One of the good things about assuming positive intent is that you should treat people well. If you do, and the other person does not reciprocate, you should no longer assume positive intent. Maybe they're just having a bad day? You can, and should, still leave room to change your mind again, but I would recommend basketing people who show signs of foolishness, selfishness, and general unkindness apart from people who reward your optimism.

It's not your job to find the good person beneath the layers of trash. Generally speaking, our faults don't dwindle upon closer inspection, and even if they did, life is short, and you probably have other things to do.

Don't always suffer fools and assholes :)

You don't always have to have boundaries, but it's okay to sometimes decide that you have some. If you try to define your boundaries perfectly so they can never be argued with, that's a trap to be exploited by those who like arguing.

Take notes and compare them with people you trust.

I have the same problem. What I've found to be helpful is that I have several friends who don't gleefully suffer fools and are always willing to help serve as a second point-of-view on whether someone is just generally an asshole.

It's a lot easier to tell if someone is trying to sell you a snow-job if you can get the perspective on how they are outside of your field-of-view.

Assuming positive intent is generally good, but it is not very specific. So it can be wise to follow it with a step of clarifying intent.

If I assume you intend to make me a delicious soup, that is still quite dangerous to me if your intent is to make me a delicious shrimp gumbo -- You do not generally intend me harm, but to achieve that intent we need to communicate about my specific allergy to shrimp.