Take the Visitor pattern. I mean, really? I already know how to work with trees. Lisp is all about trees. Ocaml lets us build tagged-union types and pattern match to our hearts' content. Do we really need to dickshit the program with Visitor? WTF does that even mean? Who is visiting and why? Is this the French meaning, where to "visit" someone is patronize a prostitute? (In French, you "pay a visit to" someone, or rendre visite à quelqu'un. You don't "visit" your sister.)
The design patterns cargo cult is horrible. It has such a "how the other half programs" smell about it that I cannot shake the belief that it was designed to make us Smart People pay for something. Anyway, how can it be "best practices" if I can't REPL the code and make function calls and see how the fucking thing works? If you can't interact with the damn thing, you can't really start to understand it, because it's almost impossible to understand code until you know what you're looking at. IDEs just give people a false sense of security about that.
Personally, I like functional programming because it has two design patterns: Noun and Verb. Nouns are immutable data. Verbs are referentially transparent functions. Want side effects? You can have them. Those are a separate class of Verbs: Scheme denotes them with a bang (e.g. set!) and Haskell has them in the IO monad. Real-world functional programming isn't about intolerantly eschewing mutable state, but about managing it.
Now, I'll admit that mature codebases will often benefit from some solution to the Adjective problem, which is what object-orientation (locally interpreted methods instead of globally-defined functions) tries to solve. OO, at its roots, isn't a bad thing. Nor is it incompatible with FP. The Alan Kay vision was: when complexity is necessary, encapsulate it behind a simpler interface. That's good stuff. He was not saying, "Go out and build gigantic, ill-defined God objects written by 39 commodity programmers, and use OO jargon to convince yourselves that you're not making a hash of the whole thing." No, he was not.