I just don’t understand this. It’s like guests being confused as to why there’s a weatherbeaten African village in the middle of the park. AK is distinct because it has several huge sections that strive for a lived-in realism as opposed to the idealized word’s fair aesthetic of World Showcase, and Dinorama is completely consistent with that. Even given that it leans towards realism, it’s still a clearly heightened Disney realism - no roadside carnival has such elaborate, custom-built, thematically-appropriate rides and statues as Dinorama. As to the consistent (rather then coherent) visual language, that’s not really true - Dinoland has a very diverse aesthetic, with the visual language of the Dig Site, Restaurantasaurus, and Dinosaur show building all being as distinct from one another as they are from Dinorama (that’s all part of the not-particularly-hidden-satire, of course). As to the storytelling, the knock against things like Tiana’s or the Main Street Bakery is that they have unnecessarily overwritten backstories that aren’t reflected by and/or don’t fit the physical elements to which they are attached. Dinoland’s story is relatively simple and is conveyed in the physical features of the land, as Disney storytelling should be.
On some level, I think fans and even less involved guests rebel against Dinorama because it acknowledges that Disney, as well-done and spectacular as it is, is still an amusement park, not a million miles removed from those trashy roadside tourist trap - and that acknowledgment takes realism an uncomfortable step too far.
In any case, if people really want to rail against a slapdash, badly themed roadside carnival, Toy Story Land is in another park.