Thanks for putting some thought into this argument! But I don't agree...
The major argument about exploitation movies for the last 25 years or so has been that the big studios have pretty much assimilated them. What once used to be taboo (sex, violence) is now mainstream. The small producers have been marginalized to the point of extinction, or at least to the point where the production values are non-existent. Movies like DJANGO and NYMPHOMANIAC are made by established directors who are considered arthouse, but they consciously pick up exploitation elements and incorporate them into their movies. Tarantino took a lot of inspiration from Italian westerns, and von Trier for all practical purposes re-made a 70s Swedish sexploitation flick (ANITA) and even picked the same lead actor! (Stellan Skarsgård)
I was intrigued enough to check out SILK 2 on IMDB, where it doesn't exactly get a glowing reception. This doesn't have to mean anything, but I don't get any urge to watch it over any of the films on the list. I think it is time to realize that the great exploitation auteurs like Corman, Russ Meyer, etc. are a thing of the past. Modern low-budget exploitation is what is crap, barely ambitious enough to cover its own ass (c.f. SHARKNADO as naueseum) and the spirit lives on in the kind of stuff Rolling Stone pointed out. There are many good low-budget movies made today, especially horror (IT FOLLOWS, BABADOOK, etc.) but they are considered "intelligent" rather than grindhouse, so I guess they don't count either.
BTW; one movie on the list that I DO think is crappy is HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN. I thought it was far too obvious in trying to be an old-style exploittion film, and stretched its one idea far too thin. BLUE RUIN I have not seen.