Yeah, I blame it on version 5 (and dotnet) and the overall tooling improvements. It has really become an excellent and easy to pick up language, with not too many warts and a very good ecosystem.
My sense is that the root cause of a lot of it is missing features in the Java language itself. There are a lot of cases where in C# I'd have used an extension method, or been able to lean more heavily on generic programming or Expression<T>, but, since Java has no good equivalents of these things, instead I have to break out a design pattern to accomplish the same task.
And, once you've cracked that seal, it's sort of an, "In for a penny, in for a pound," type situation. Next thing I know, I'm neck deep in it, and I don't even know how I got there.
It's true that, in a single dispatch language, I sometimes need to use the visitor pattern. And the visitor pattern is a little bit annoying to implement, it's true. But the implication of that Norvig quote is that every single language should implement multiple dispatch, and I simply cannot agree with that. And I suspect that a lot of people who like to invoke that sentiment would not prove to have the courage of their convictions when presented with a situation where Haskell needs a design pattern (sorry, "idiom") in order to work around the fact that it doesn't have dynamic dispatch at all, multiple or otherwise.
In general, it's OK for languages to be small and focused, or even to be large and multiparadigm but still draw the line at adding some features. That's not my criticism of Java. My criticism of Java is more along the lines of, Java's a kitchen sink language, and there's nothing wrong (aside from perhaps aesthetics) with being a kitchen sink language, but there are other kitchen sink languages that did a better job of cramming more random crap in more cleanly.