Again, I have to ask.
Your arguement is that it is ok to appropriate Jewish cultural language because other groups are appropriating the word Holocaust? That if we allow one word to be appropriated, regardless of any meaning changes - after all, a phylactery, even in any dictionary definition, isn't a sofa - which a Lich's Phylactery certainly can be - it doesn't have to be an amulet at all - we must allow all words to be appropriated?
Strawman. I have not claimed such.
With regards to phylactery, I have already posted various definitions including Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com along with noting that Tefillin became the first definition for phylactery in the 14th century. I have also posted Merriam-Websters tracing of the words origin and how that relates to Dictionary.coms second definition entry regarding early Christian usage and as a safeguard for protection as part of the third along with amulet and charms (so yes, if the sofa is being used to house and safeguad the soul it might well fall under a phylactery (third definition in dictionary.com which traces the use of phylactery to Latin and Greek origins of the word which included safeguard and the latter also a guarded place
Beyond the dictionary definition, look at what someone else posted regarding what Jewish scholars have said about the usage of phylactery and Tefillin. Phylactery is not our word. It does not appear in our texts. Tefillin is the word that reappears with the exception of one mention is made of the Greek word from which phylactery is derived. A Tefellin is a Tefellin except when applying another culture's term whether it be the Middle English terms filtaterie Philacterie or either the Roman or Greek. In otherwords, as I have stated before, Tefillin can be categorized under phylactery when applying another culture's terms, but not all phylactery are Tefillin.
Finally, as I have written previously, worn boxes with religious texts or prayers are not unique to Judaism. They were also found in the Islamic world around the Mediterranean during the Middle Ages as were prayers wrapped in triangular folded paper.
As for the holocaust, it is irrelevant to the discussion (although you are the one that brought it in). Holocaust is not the appropriation of a Hebrew word. It is a Middle English word derived from Latin from Greek, and, thus, in the English language before the Jewish genocide known as the Holocaust. It was also used by Churchill circa 1920 to describe the Armenian genocide. As for the Jewish people, according to Encyclopedia Britanica, we didn't even like the use of the word Holocaust (which only a few writers used) to describe what happened which is we, initially, chose two other words (one of which is Sho'ah or Shoah )and the other being term used for the destruction of the First Temple). The term Holocaust became more commonly after WWII in English speaking countries, but was not standardized to refer to European Jewish genocide until the 1970s.