Yes, I have been here for some years, I know plenty of hackers and many of them are pretty humorous too. I think the HN site guidelines capture the things hackers are interested in quite well: "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". Though there should probably be an appendix to match the current state of HN: "… but is not controversial". However, I think especially the controversial things are intellectually curious, for example when Musk and Hawking warn against AI and when three female CS students try to raise awareness for gender issues.

I think HN is trapped: On the one hand flagging is necessary to mitigate the constant influx of people who write poor comments which might scare people away, on the other hand it often chokes off interesting topics. What's left is a lot of boring and fleeting stuff, which eventually scares people away too. Fixing this situation is difficult, but maybe it would be a good start to stop downvoting contrary opinions, digressing and humorous comments, and to stop hastily judge other people. What's wrong for example with someone who is concerned that there is not enough awareness for free speech and democracy on HN? If that is his or her perception, why does it deserve a downvote?