It doesn't:

You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing may happen anyway. May as well do the good thing. - see, hasn't changed in tone or content in any meaningful way

Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. If changing the thing you do has some effect on the outcome, then the whole thing falls apart. If doing some other thing raises the chances of a better outcome, then the whole "may as well" argument fundamentally doesn't work anymore.

If you can't see that then this is a waste of time.

opposing genocide is also valid (you can't seem to accept this, I don't know why)

I oppose genocide. I also oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. It does not matter to me that the person helping to make the genocide worse was trying to make it better, if their actions help to make it worse then I oppose those actions. I feel like I'm repeating myself .

Again, the people protesting for civil rights before it was an effective movement were doing a good thing.

And, again, I didn't say they weren't. They used effective methods, I applaud them. You are suggesting ineffective, and in fact counterproductive, methods. Do not equate your mealy-mouthed performative protest vote to the real action and sacrifice that actually accomplished something in the fight for civil rights.

Tory Vs Labour then Reform

Different country, different system, still irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat it.

They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms you're making now.

No? I never criticized them at all. Where are you getting this?

You support direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide?

I support direct action that opposes genocide. Intent is unimportant to me. Actions with intent, but without the ability to actually oppose, are materially performative. I oppose the substitution of performative grandstanding for actual strategy, especially when it's actively counterproductive to achievable progress.

I feel we've gone full circle a couple times now.

I feel you have. That tends to happen when you ignore the other half of a conversation in favor of repetition.

I obviously dont feel like you've granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and I'm sure you think I'm as confused as ever.

I'm not sure you've extended the courtesy of empathy that you think you have.

I think people reading after will understand the claim that supporting dem is a cycle of bad-worse-bad-worse, until there is no worse to go... or you change for something "good" instead of "least bad".

For all our sakes, I sincerely hope they do not. I hope they are intelligent enough to understand the American electoral system, and choose an effective means to establish something good.

we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then it's the little guy's fault.

Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No one said it was their fault, but it is their responsibility. There's plenty of propaganda to influence their decision, but it is still their decision.

What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what I've already said.

I agree. The fact that you haven't changed your approach to consider any of my responses, and instead have attempted to change my responses to support your approach, displeases me. It always displeases me to encounter deeply counterproductive leftists.

I'm a leftist, I want leftism to prevail, and every counterproductive leftist is two steps back in accomplishing that goal. It gives me no pleasure to have these disagreements. To be honest it fills me with a sort of malaise, a sad realization that the people on my side are so often so incompetent that they get in their own way. I had a naïve hope that I might see real leftist progress in my life. But seeing my comrades I'm less hopeful by the day.

perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest

When the alternative major party is not more genocidal, and also much worse in many other ways, or it loses its status as a major party, I can easily be convinced. Before that, voting for the slightly less bad option is still the only rational choice. Let me know if you wanna help it lose that status.

let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone else's best interest.

Oh sure! Women, immigrants, LGBT, anyone who isn't a white male millionaire really. They'd all be better off under the other party. No one I care about is better off right now than they would've been under the alternative.

because you won't vote for them you don't think they'll win

No? Because they don't poll well. Because pretending Duverger's Law doesn't exist doesn't make it so.

Stop trying to make voting do things it doesn't do. Vote strategically, and redirect this energy to direct action. Join your local DSA, talk to your co-workers about unionizing, engage with your community, participate in local politics. There are many options available to you. The option you are promoting is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive. I feel like I'm trusting myself.